- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 26th August 2013 (Annexure P-3), whereby, respondents No.3 to 5 have been appointed/posted to the post of Deputy Director in the office of respondent No.2 with a further prayer directing the respondent-State to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Director as per Punjab Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing) Group 'A' Service Rules, 2001 (for brevity 'the rules') by issuing a writ of mandamus. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had joined as a Lecturer on 20th July 1994 to serve under respondents No.1 & 2. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer on 29th November 2000 and afterward as Head of the Department on 8th August 2008 in the same College where he taught students. Learned counsel further contends that the next promotional post from Head of Department is of Deputy Director in the office of respondent No.2. The criteria for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director has been laid down in Appendix 'A' of the rules and is to be filled up through selection amongst the Heads of Department having at least two years experience to their credit as per Appendix 'B'.
(2.) The petitioner claims that selection to the post of Deputy Director is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There is no other provision in the rules except the eligibility criteria envisaging two years experience as Head of Department and, thus, the principle of seniority cannot be over-looked by the department.
(3.) Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of letter dated 9th August 2012, the Principals of the Polytechnic Colleges and Institutes in the State of Punjab forwarded the applications/ consent letters and also their own recommendations to respondent No.2 for consideration for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner and other candidates were called for a 'meeting' amidst the competent authorities on 21st December 2012 as a vital limb of the selection process. Learned counsel urges that the eligible candidates were called only for a 'meeting', and thus, the petitioner remained in the mistaken belief that the so called 'meeting' was only formal in nature as neither any specific question was asked of him in relation to gauge aptitude for discharge of higher duties and responsibilities nor any change in process of evaluation was ever informed to the petitioner for him to meet the challenge. The petitioner prays that in the absence of any provision in the statutory rules promotion of persons junior to him in the seniority list deserves to be quashed or at any rate he be accorded promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.;