- (1.) This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos. 17 of 1981, 4529 of 1982, 2493 and 5156 of 1984 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions.
(2.) Dispute in these petitions relate to the seniority to the post of Sub Divisional Engineers and subsequent promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in the Electrical Department of the State of Punjab. Petitioner- N.S.Lamba in CWP No. 17 of 1981 is also respondent in CWP No. 4529 of 1982. Both of them raised their inter se dispute. However, petitioner in CWP No. 2493 of 1984 and petitioner in CWP No. 5156 of 1984 have also raised similar dispute of seniority and promotion.
(3.) First of all, I may take notice of the facts relevant in CWP Nos.17 of 1981 and 4529 of 1982. Petitioner-N.S. Lamba, after obtaining diploma in Electrical Engineering also qualified AMIE Examination and joined as Sub Divisional Engineer in Punjab Service of Engineers Class II on being selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission vide order dated 9.2.1973 as a direct recruit. His initial appointment was on probation and on completion of probation, he was confirmed vide order dated 27.4.1976. Mr. DD Verma, respondent no. 2 in CWP No. 17 of 1981 and petitioner in CWP No. 4529 of 1982 was diploma holder and came to be recruited as Sectional Officer on 28.12.1959. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on ad hoc basis on 23.6.1966 and appointed substantively w.e.f. 30.11.1968. The Staterespondent issued a draft roster of Sub Divisional Engineers (Electrical) for inviting objections vide its Circular dated 29.1.1980. In this Circular, it has been mentioned that the first block of eight vacancies of Sub Divisional Engineers has been consumed. The petitioner, N.S. Lamba seems to be aggrieved of this Circular. Besides filing representations, he has also challenged the aforesaid circular as his representations have not been decided. The further grievance of petitioner-N.S. Lamba is that respondent DD Verma has been promoted as Executive Engineer ignoring the seniority and claim of petitioner-N.S. Lamba. His further grievance is that the Circular dated 29.1.1980 showing first block of eight vacancies as exhausted is contrary to the facts and rules. The petitioner has also alleged that neither any valid roster has been fixed in terms of Rule 6 nor any seniority has been determined under Rule 12 of the Rules and respondent-DD Verma has been promoted in contravention of the rules. Petitioner accordingly has prayed for a direction in the nature of Mandamus to determine the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent-DD Verma and to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date person junior to him was promoted.;