J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal on 23.5.2001. At the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner, his name in the seniority list of lecturers was at Sr.No.286 and that of one Nirbhey Singh (respondent no.3) figured at Sr.No.294. It is pointed out that the aforesaid Nirbhey Singh has been promoted to the post of Principal under the rule of seniority-cum-merit whereas, the petitioner had a prior right of promotion over the said Nirbhey Singh. It is further pointed out that without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the seniority list depicting the name of the petitioner at Sr.No.286 has been altered to 370.
(2.) As against the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 1 of the preliminary submissions in the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, it is averred as under :- "That the seniority of the lecturer (men) cadre was recasted in the light of the judgement delivered in Ajit Singh Janjua-II case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16-09-1999 and Guidelines issued by the Punjab Government on 22-10-1999. This seniority list was issued on 27-12-2000 in which petitioner stands at seniority No.286 and respondent no.3 stands at seniority No.294. According to the seniority list issued on 27-12- 2000, the cases of the lecturer (men) upto the seniority No.300 (General) were considered for promotion in P.E.S. Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 23-05-2001. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the eligible lecturer (Men) (General) upto the seniority No.300 were promoted on 27-06-2001 along with the respondent no.3 Sh.Nirbhay Singh, seniority no.294, who was junior to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner for promotion in P.E.S.ClassII (School and Inspection Cadre) was considered along with the Junior Lecturers to the petitioner, but the case of the petitioner was not available before the Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, one post was kept reserve for the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee. But when it came into the notice of the authority that there are some discrepancies/technical error/clerical mistake in the seniority list, the seniority list was again recasted on 10-10-2002. In this seniority list the petitioner stands at seniority No.402 and the respondent no.3 Sh.Nirbhay Singh stands at seniority No.404. According to the seniority list issued on 10-10-2002, the lecturers (men) whose names stands beyond the seniority No.300 and they were promoted in P.E.S. Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) on dated 27.6.2001 from the seniority list issued on 27.12.2000 and who were junior to the petitioner, were not entitled for promotion in PES-II school and inspection cadre. Such those persons who were in-service in PES-II were reverted in their original cadre i.e. lecturers cadre according to the law. But the respondent no.3-Sh.Nirbhay Singh was retired after attaining the age of superannuation and retiral benefit on the basis of last pay drawn has been released to him because he had actually worked. It is made clear that at the time of reversion of the junior to the petitioner, Sh. Nirbhay Singh respondent no.3 has retired and those junior to the petitioner who were inservice in PES-II, were reverted. The claim of the petitioner that he should be promoted in P.E.S. Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) from the date of promotion of Sh. Nirbhay Singh respondent no.3 is not maintainable. It is settled law that the benefit of bonafide mistake of the Department can not be given to any others. Therefore petitioner is not entitled for promotion in P.E.S. Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) from the date of promotion of Sh.Nirbhay Singh respondent no.3."
(3.) In view of the clear and categoric stand adopted by the respondents in the written statement, namely, that all persons junior to the petitioner, who were wrongfully promoted (except those like respondent no.3, who have since retired from service), have since been reverted, we are satisfied that no further action is called for in the instant matter. The petitioner can not be granted any benefit on account of the fact that a wrongful benefit was granted to respondent no.3. Dismissed.;