- (1.) The petitioner was working as a peon in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Branch, Haryana. The Government issued instructions on March 30, 1973 regarding regular appointment of Class IV Employees as Clerks. It was observed that the Government had considered that Class IV employees whose work and conduct was satisfactory, should be encouraged, and if they fulfilled certain qualifications they should be appointed as clerks. The Government also desired that the concerned Departments should make appropriate provisions in the statutory rules in that behalf. Pursuant to these directions, the petitioner was promoted as a clerk on ad hoc basis and later on his services were also approved of by the Selection Board It is not disputed before us that he is holding the post of clerk on regular basis. Earlier on the basis of Rule II of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Head Office, Clerical (State Service Class III) Rules, 1965, the petitioner was assigned his seniority below the incumbent No. 48 shown in the seniority list. This seniority was then disturbed and on a representation made by the petitioner the same was again restored vide Chief Engineer's order dated July 17, 1975 (attached as Annexure P-7 to the petition). Later on, vide office order dated March 17, 1976, the order restoring the due seniority to the petitioner was withdrawn by the Chief Engineer. It is this order which the petitioner has challenged in this petition on the ground that after once having assigned him a position in the seniority list, the authorities could not change the same in violation of his rights under Art. 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) In the return filed on behalf of the State, it has been urged that the petitioner was not being reverted. All that was being done was that the Department had submitted draft rules to the State Government for approval. As soon as the approval is accorded to those rules, the seniority of the petitioner will be fixed in accordance with them. On behalf of the private respondents Mr. S. D Sharma has contended before us that the petitioner could not have been appointed as a clerk in the absence of the amendment of the rules and as such he could not be assigned any seniority in the list of clerks regularly appointed in this Department.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. Copy of the order of the Government dated March 10, 1973, Annexure P. 3/T Government attached to the petition, shows that the Government had taken a special decision to encourage the peons by appointing them as clerks in suitable cases and rule 18 of the aforementioned rules says that the Government can in a suitable case, by order, relax the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons The order of the Government Annexure P. 3/T squarely falls within the ambit of rule 18 and it must be assumed that as far as the peons are concerned, the relevant rules has for the time being been relaxed. It is a different matter that in this very letter the Government had P. 3 desired that the various departments should amend the statutory rules to make a regular provision in this behalf Inability of the various Departments to do so within a reasonable time does not denude this letter of its vitality. Once it is held that the petitioner was regularly appointed as a Clerk, then rule II comes into play and he is entitled to claim seniority on the basis of this rule. It is not disputed before us that if this rule is followed, the petitioner's name should come at Serial No. 49 in the seniority list.;