- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Steno Typist on a number of grounds. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 3 has been appointed against a non-existing post as there is only one sectioned post of Steno Typist in the Punjab Remote Sending Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the Centre"). The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure P-2) by which respondent No. 3 has been invited to appear in the test to be conducted by the duly Constituted Committee for appointment on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Centre to promote the petitioner on the post of Stenographer on the principle of "seniority-cum-merit" and not by holding the test.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 having been appointed illegally against a non-existing post cannot be considered for appointment on the post of Stenographer. The post of Stenographer could only be filled by promotion of Steno-Typist. He relies on the rules known as "Service Conditions for Staff of Punjab Remote Sensing Centre". According to the learned counsel, in view of Clause (i) of the definition contained in the Rules, the post of Stenographer could only be filled by an existing employee who is employed on the post under the Centre. Since respondent No. 3 is not holding any post under the Centre, he could not be considered for appointment by promotion. Rule 2(iii) accordingly to the learned counsel, makes it absolutely clear that appointments by promotion can only be made by promotion of existing personnel of the Centre.;