M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) B.D. Bhalla, Public Relations Officer, of the Directorate of Public Relations, Punjab, Chandigarh, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for counting the service rendered by him as Circle Organiser under the Government of India and as District Mass Education and Information Officer under Himachal Pradesh Government, and on that basis for assigning seniority position under Rules 10 & 11 of the Punjab Public Relations (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1958, as also to consider him for promotion retrospectively as Deputy Director, Public Relations Department, with effect from 21st/28th January, 1988 from which date persons junior to him were promoted in supersession of the superior claim of the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner is a double graduate with degree in journalism. He had about twelve years service to his credit rendered by him under the Government of India as well as Government of Himachal Pradesh, when an advertisement for the post of Public Relations Officer in the grade of Rs. 350-900 appeared in "The Tribune" dated 29th July, 1975. The petitioner was selected, by way of direct recruitment, as Public Relations Officer, and was appointed on 8th March, 1976. He actually joined this post on 6th April, 1976. At that time, he was holding the post of District Mass Education and Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900 for the last more than three years, that is, with effect from 1st March, 1973. According to the appointment order dated 8th March, 1976, Annexure P-l, the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years. This probation was governed by Rule 10 of the Punjab Public Relations (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1958, by virtue of which the petitioner claimed the service rendered by him from 1st March, 1973, to 5th April, 1976, as District Mass Education and Information Officer, in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900, to be counted towards probation length of service and seniority against the post of District Public Relations Officer which too carried the same pay scale of Rs. 350-900. Since this was not done, the petitioner was not considered for confirmation/substantive appointment, which resulted adversely in determination of his seniority and consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Public Relations, and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Gurinder Singh and Bhartinder Singh, respectively, were placed senior to the petitioner in the provisional gradation list dated 5th/10th March, 1987, Annexure P-4/1. This placement of the said two respondents above the petitioner was only for the reasons that they happened to be promoted to the post of Public Relations Officer on 10th March, 1976, whereas the petitioner was appointed on 6th April, 1976, when he came from Himachal Pradesh having served there on the post of District Mass Education and Information Officer for full three years. As a result thereof, on 21st January, 1988, Gurinder Singh, respondent No.3, and one Bim Sen, junior to the petitioner, were promoted as Deputy Directors. Within a week thereafter, on 28th January, 1988, respondent No. 4, Bhartinder Singh, was also promoted as Deputy Director. Soon thereafter, respondents Nos. 6 and 7, Shiv Ram Mann and Attar Singh, were also promoted to the post of Deputy Director. Feeling aggrieved against the promotions, the petitioner represented against the same. When this representation dated 26th August, 1988, was not decided & for full two months, he approached this Court for the redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Though separate written statement have been filed by the respondents, the factual position, as averred by the petitioner, has been admitted. However, the impugned action is sought to be justified on the ground that as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner on the basis of their earlier entry into service, they had rightly been promoted. No specific and direct stand has been taken with regard to the non-counting of the period of service rendered by the petitioner as District Mass Education and Information Officer in Himachal Pradesh towards probation length of service, seniority etc. So tar as the promotion of respondent No. 5, Bhim Sen, is concerned, the stand taken is that he has superseded the petitioner inter alia on account of better record of service.;