- (1.) Petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.4.1999 (P/4), passed by respondent No.1. Record reveals that vide impugned order, revision filed by respondent No.2 under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was allowed by respondent No.1 and the petitioner was directed to consider case of respondent No.2 for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted to the post of Junior Accountant i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1998 and to allow him all consequential benefits.
(2.) As per averments made in this writ petition, respondent No.2 was appointed as Junior Clerk with the petitioner on 14.6.1984. His service conditions are governed by the rules known as Punjab Cooperative Financing Institution Service Rules, 1958 (in short the Service Rules). Respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 14.6.1991. As per rules, he was put on probation for a period of one year, which could have been extended upto 18 months, however, keeping in view work and conduct of respondent No.2, he was regularized in service w.e.f. 5.6.1992 (Annexure R2/1). Name of respondent No.2 alongwith others, was considered for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant, however, keeping in view adverse remarks entered in his confidential reports for the year 1991 and 1992, he was ignored, whereas persons junior to him were promoted to the higher post. Respondent No.2 challenged said action of the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 69 of the Act. After notice, revision was allowed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.4.1999, directing the petitioner to consider case of respondent No.2 for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant and to give him all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Perusal of paper book indicates that in this writ petition, the petitioner, by referring to Rule 10 of the Service Rules and by-law 37 clause (iii) of the registered by-laws of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order on the ground that respondent No.1 was not competent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act. It is primary contention of counsel for the petitioner that dispute regarding promotion of respondent No.2 was not covered under the provisions of the Act, the respondent No.2 was ignored as per registered by-laws of the petitioner, as such, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, as has been done in the present case.;