- (1.) The petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the Department of Education on 27.05.1975, 06.10.1975 and 15.01.1976, respectively.
(2.) The services of the petitioners were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977. In the seniority framed by the respondent department pertaining to the cadre of Clerks, the names of the petitioners figured at Sr. Nos. 1323, 1349 and 1353, respectively. On the other hand, private respondents No. 5 and 6, joined the Department of Education on the post of Clerks on 01.10.1980 and 06.05.1981 respectively on a regular basis. The names of private respondents No. 5 and 6 were reflected at Sr. Nos. 1850 and 2067 respectively of the seniority list of Clerks. The admitted position of fact is that the present petitioners were senior to private respondents No. 5 and 6 in the cadre of Clerks.
(3.) Promotion from the post of Clerk is to the post of Senior Assistant. Prior to the promulgation of the Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984, promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was made purely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. In terms of the 1984 Rules, a condition was stipulated that it was only upon the Clerk qualifying the Assistant Grade Examination would render him/her to be eligible for promotion as Senior Assistant. In terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984, an employee qualifying the test was eligible for promotion irrespective of the number of chances availed to qualify such test. In the year 1990, the number of chances that were held out to the Clerks for qualifying the test were more than five. The petitioners, admittedly, qualified in the Assistant Grade Examination not in the first five attempts, but subsequently. The State of Punjab had issued instructions whereby persons who qualified the Assistant Grade Examination in five or less than five chances were given preference for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant as compared to such employees who had qualified such Assistant Grade Examination having availed more than five chances. Resultantly, even though the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and were senior to the private respondents No. 5 and 6, but on account of the fact that the private respondents had qualified the test in the first five chances, they stole a march, in so far as promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was concerned. The factual position, accordingly, that emerged was that the private respondents even though being junior in the cadre of Clerks were promoted as Senior Assistants w.e.f. 21.03.1990 and 03.05.1990, whereas, the present petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants w.e.f. 06.06.1997, 18.03.1997 and 10.06.1997.;