- (1.) The petitioner makes a grievance of his having been wrongfully ignored for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge by respondent No.1. It is on 8.9.1990 when the Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 52 posts of P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) reserving 3 posts for B.C. Category against which the petitioner applied unsuccessfully. The successful candidates were appointed in the year 1992. The petitioner agitated his claim for appointment by way of C.W.P. No.12210 of 1991 which was dismissed on 26.8.1998 leading to L.P.A. No.450 of 1998 which was allowed in his favour on 16.10.2001. The relevant part of the judgment of the L.P.A. Bench which had accepted the claim of the petitioner and assigned him the place of seniority at the bottom of the list of the candidates selected on the basis of the advertisement of 1991 is extracted here below :- "For the reasons mentioned mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Commission is directed to interview the appellant for appointment against the post reserved for Backward Class candidate. If the appellant is found suitable, then he shall be given appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) by being treated as a candidate selected against the posts advertised in 1991. However, it is made clear that he shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the intervening period as he has not worked on the post. It is also made clear that he shall be placed at the bottom of the candidates selected on the basis of advertisement of 1991."
(2.) The petitioner joined as a Civil Judge(Junior Division) on 5.6.2003 and was assigned the seniority with effect from the year 1992 along with the incumbents who had been selected pursuant to the advertisement of 1990. The petitioner was promoted as Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) on 16.5.2007. On 14.3.2011, applications were invited for filling up 15 vacancies of Additional District Judges under Rule 7(3)(a) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 pursuant to which the suitability test was conducted on 18.3.2011. Out of the 45 seniormost candidates summoned for suitability test, 21 candidates including the petitioner qualified but he was denied the benefit of promotion on account of the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 by respondent No.1 which introduced the criteria of length of service and the weightage of half mark for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of 10. In the case of the petitioner, "every completed year" was construed to be with effect from 2003 when he was actually appointed and functioned as a Judicial Officer.
(3.) The relevant clause reads as under :- "Criterion for promotion of Civil Judges(SD) as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab. (i) A candidate is required to obtain atleast 50% marks in aggregate in the suitability test consisting of written test and viva voce of 20 marks each to be considered eligible for promotion. (ii) After a candidate is found eligible on the basis of suitability test, his/her merit shall be determined in the following manner:- (a) 20 marks have been allocated for annual confidential reports for the preceding 5 years in the following manner :- A+ Outstanding - 04 marks A Very Good - 03 marks B+ Good - 02 marks B Satisfactory - 01 marks C - 0 marks (b) Award half mark for every completed year in the service by the Officer but the maximum marks for the completed years of service shall not exceed ten.";