- (1.) The petitioner, who is an employee of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, was appointed initially as a Cleaner at Bus Stand, Patiala on daily wages for a period of three months w.e.f. 11.4.1983. However, vide order dated 17.12.1987 he was appointed on ad-hoc basis for 89 days and by another order dated 5.10.1988, copy Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, the petitioner was ordered to maintain store issue ledger and continued to perform the said duties which are normally performed by a Clerk of the respondent-Corporation. However, the petitioner was not given appointment of a Clerk and is being paid the salary of a Cleaner. The petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 1 to accord him status of a Clerk as was given to one Amir Chand Clerk who was promoted in similar circumstances in pursuance to the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, but to no avail. Left with no alternative the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint him as Clerk.
(2.) The contention of Mr. B.S. Walia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was performing the duties of a clerk in the Patiala-II Depot of PRTC. The work of the petitioner was appreciated and he was also given cash award. Counsel also contends that minimum qualification for appointment of Clerk is matriculation. As such, the petitioner deserves to be appointed as a clerk. In order to fortify his submission, the counsel invited this court's attention to a decision rendered in C.W.P. No. 5412 of 1992 Jagdev Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another decided on 22.7.1993.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. H.P.S. Gill submits that there is no substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Clerk and the ratio of the case Jagdev Singh v. PRTC is not applicable to the case in hand.;