- (1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 16.4.1993 ( Annexure P/9) by which respondent No.2 was promoted from the post of Assistant Employment Officer ( Vocational Guidance) (hereinafter to be referred to "AEO (VG)" ) to the post of Deputy Director of Employment.
(2.) The petitioner applied for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of AEO(VG) pursuant to the advertisement issued in Februray, 1972 by the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'PPSC') and was one amongst seven candidates selected for the said post. Her appointment letter dated 17/18.8.1972 is Annexure P/2. The period of probation was to be two years. The appointment of the petitioner and terms and conditions of her service were governed by the Punjab Employment ( Class I & II) Service Rule,1963 ( for short 'Rule of 1963'). The petitioner was promoted as District Employment Officer vide order dated 19.5.1986 ( Annexure P/3). Respondent No.2 was in fact appointed as AEO (VG) vide order dated 26.10.1968 with effect from 31.10.1968 against temporary/ad hoc appointment. The aforesaid appointment was in response to a requisition sent by respondent No.1 to the Employment Exchange. The temporary/ad hoc appointment is governed by Rule 12 of Rules of 1963, which is reproduced as under : " 12.Recruitment against temporary vacancies : The services of a member of the service, appointed against a temporary vacancy shall,in the absence of any condition to the contrary in his appointment letter, be terminable on notice of one month on either side: Provided that it will be open to the appointing authority to pay, in lieu of notice, the official's salary and allowances for the period by which the notice falls short of one month and the appointing authority on its part, may also permit an official to resign his post either without notice or by depositing with the appointing authority his salary and allowances in lieu of notice in respect of such period as the appointing authority may fix: Provided further that the period so fixed shall not exceed the period by which the notice given by the official falls short of one month." Therefore, the appointment of respondent No.2 was not through the PPSC.
(3.) It is further stated that respondent No.2 had also applied in response to the advertisement issued in February 1972 against which the petitioner was declared selected, but respondent No.2 was found unsuitable to the said post and her candidature was rejected. Another recruitment process was held in the year 1975 against which respondent No.2 applied and she was again rejected by the PPSC. The petitioner is not aware of the mode of appointment of respondent No.2 but she was approved for regularization of her service in March 8,1976 by the PPSC and her appointment letter is dated 27.1.1977. The petitioner has not challenged the mode of appointment of respondent No.2 but only challenged fixation of her seniority which is to be counted w.e.f. 27.1.1977.;