S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE constitutional validity of Rules 9 and 19 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group 'A'), Rules, 1979 is sought to be tested on the anvil of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India, in this Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) DESPITE the volume of pleadings, the matter is not in a wide compass and indeed narrows down primarily to the validity of the aforesaid challenged provisions. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts mainly with regard to the points really in issue. The eight Petitioners were appointed as Assistant District Attorneys in December, 1972, which posts were designated as Deputy District Attorneys in May, 1976, and they claim to have completed the period of probation successfully on different dates and also to have crossed the departmental efficiency bars. At the time of the appointment and till recently the conditions of service of District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys were governed by the Punjab District Attorneys Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Rules) and thereunder Rule 9 prescribed the qualifications, etc., for recruitment to the service whilst Rule 12 laid down the method of determination of inter se seniority. It is the Petitioners' stand that at the material time, there was a separate cadre consisting of prosecuting Deputy Superintendents of Police, prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub -Inspectors and the persons recruited to this cadre were members of the Police Department and consequently governed entirely by the Punjab Police Rules. It is their claim that the post of Assistant District Attorney carried much higher scale of pay than the Prosecuting Inspector and further had gazetted status whilst that of the prosecuting Inspector was a non -gazetted post. The primary challenge herein is to the promotion of Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as District Attorneys, - -vide Annexures P/4 to P/6 to the writ petition. It has been averred that the aforesaid Respondents were originally recruited as prosecuting Sub -Inspectors and were much later promoted as Prosecuting Inspectors. Whilst they were working in the latter posts the government in the year 1974 decided to abolish the cadre of prosecuting Inspectors and to appoint them as Assistant District Attorneys. In order to maintain the distinction between the two cadres, the Prosecuting Inspectors, on their appointment to the Cadre of Assistant District Attorneys were designated as Additional Public Prosecutors, though the pay scale given to them was made identical with that to which the Petitioners were entitled. It was also specifically provided that the aforesaid five Respondents and their class would be governed by the provisions of Punjab District Attorneys Service Rules, 1960, In pursuance of this decision, identical letters of appointment, were issued to the various Prosecuting Inspectors as also the prosecuting Deputy Superintendents of Police, copy of which is Annexure P/l to the writ petition. In pursuance thereto, the five Respondents joined as Assistant District Attorneys on or about April 1, 1974.
(3.) THE Petitioners claim that since Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 joined the cadre of Assistant District Attorneys in April, 1974, they inevitably ranked junior to the Petitioners as also to other persons who had been appointed as such much prior to the aforesaid date in view of the governing provision of Rule 12 of the Punjab District Attorneys Service Rules, 1960. Consequently, in the gradation list issued by the department, the names of the five Respondents found mention after those of the Petitioners and in a separate category. It has been highlighted that 1960 Rules did not provide for any post of Additional Public Prosecutors, but as the pay scales and other conditions of service were identical, they were deemed to have been appointed to the cadre of the Assistant District Attorneys. It is the stand of the Petitioners that in any event, the five Respondents were either ranked junior to the petitioners or were ineligible for promotion to the post of District Attorneys under the existing Rules, Reliance for this is placed on Rule 5 of the Punjab District Attorneys Service Rules, 1960, which inter alia, laid down the method of recruitment in the case of District Attorneys. Nevertheless, the Petitioners aver that in flagrant violation of the said Rule, the five Respondents were promoted as District Attorneys, - -vide Annexures P/4, P/5 and P/6 dated May 7, 1976, January ?,, 1978 and September 18, 1978, respectively. Further these promotions were made subject to the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission.;