Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) The Excise and Taxation Commissioner advertised certain post of Accountants in the year 1962. The selection was made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board and the petitioners were selected. Petitioner 1, O.P. Hurria, joined the post of accountant in the Excise and Taxation Office at Ludhiana on April, 5, 1963 while petitioner 2 Trilok Singh joined the Excise and Taxation Office at Ferozepore on March 18, 1963 as an Accountant. Petitioner was later on appointed as a Head Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Office at Chandigarh (on deputation), and petitioner 2 was transferred to the Excise and Taxation Office, Gurdaspur. The posts of Accountant/Head Clerk are borne on the ministerial cadre of the Excise and Taxation Department and constitute a part of the Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class III Service. There also exists another service known as the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service Class III-A). This Service includes amongst others the posts of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. The rules with regard to this Service are embodied in the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service Class III-A) Rules 1956. The Rules relevant for the decision of this writ petition are as under:- 5. "Method of recruitment - Members of the service shall be recruited in the following manner:- (a) by promotion from the cadres of Excise Inspector and Taxation Inspectors (who have served as such for a period of at least 3 years. (b) by transfer of members of the ministerial establishment of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, and (c) Competitive examination, the syllabus for which is given in appendix B conducted by the Commission either separately or jointly with that for recruitment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and allied services. 6. Appointment to the Service.- When any vacancy occurs, or is about to occur, in the Service, Government shall determine in what manner it shall be filled:- Provided that 37-3 per cent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion from the cadres of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors, 12 per cent by transfer of members of the ministerial establishment serving in the Excise and Taxation Department and the remainder, i.e. 50 per cent by direct appointment. 9. Appointment by transfer:- No person shall be appointed to the Service by transfer under the provisions of clause (b) of rule 5 who- (a) has not completed five years continuous Government service ; (b) has attained the age of 40 years on or before the first day of Oct. immediately before the date on which the names are considered for appointment, and (c) is not a Graduate of a recognised University ; Provided that Government may relax the age limit and educational qualifications in suitable cases. 19. Power of relaxation:- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons."
(2.) Respondents 3 to 6 belong to the ministerial establishment of the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, and were appointed as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers on purely temporary basis, respondent 3 having been appointed by order dated March 28,1968 while respondents 4 to 6 were appointed by orders dated Aug. 12, 1968. These respondents are not graduates but they have much longer continuous Government service than five years and respondents 4 to 6 were also more than 40 years of age on the date of their appointment. Their appointments are challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they were not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers under the rules governing the Service as set out above while the petitioners, who were qualified in every manner, were not considered and thus their fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India were violated. It is further submitted that respondents 3 to 6 had been ignored for promotion as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers till Feb., 1968, while their juniors had been appointed earlier. Two instances of Madanjit Singh and Bhagwant Singh have been cited. It is insinuated that respondents 3 to 6 had an access to the Minister incharge Excise and Taxation Shri Harbhajan Singh, and the then Chief Minister, Shri Lachman Singh Gill, who made their - appointments for extraneous reasons. This allegation has been denied in the returns filed by the respondents and it has been urged that respondents 3 to 6 were appointed on merits, the age having been relaxed by the Governor of Punjab, by memorandum No. 3844-E & T (l)-67/5475, dated Nov. 7, 1967 in exercise of powers conferred on him by rule 19 of the said Rules. According to this memorandum, the Governor of Punjab was placed to relax the provision of rule 9 of the said Rules and to fix the age limit at 50 years instead of 40 years. The reason stated for making the relaxation is in order to avoid undue hardship to the experienced and senior members of the ministerial establishment of the Excise and Taxation Department in matter to appointment by transfer of the posts of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers". It is further stated that the academic qualification was also relaxed in their case under rule 9 (b) of the said Rules, While considering their cases, the petitioners cases were also considered but they were not accepted It is then emphasised that no fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated as they have only the right to be considered for promotion but have no right to be promoted.
(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioners had stated that they were not considered when the appointments of respondents 3 to 6 were made but in their replication they have impliedly admitted that their cases were considered because they have said," the petitioners were fully eligible under the rules and as such, their claims could not have been ignored in such a summary manner." So their grievance is that an elaborate order should have been passed while rejecting their cases for promotion. I regret my inability to agree to the submission made. The petitioners have only the right to we considered for promotion but have no right to be promoted is well settled by now. I have seen the records which have been produced by the Deputy Advocate-General and from the perusal thereof am satisfied that the claims of the petitioners were duly considered but they were not accepted. The petitioners cannot make a grievance that an elaborate order rejecting their claims was not passed.;