- (1.) THE petitioner in the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the validity of the order of respondent No. 1, dated August 17, 1987, passed on Appeal No. 646 dated May 23, 1985 primarily on the ground that no reasons have been given by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the appeal.
(2.) A few relevant facts be stated to appreciate the question raised by the petitioner :
(3.) THE petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and holds degrees in Master of Arts and Bachelor of Laws. He was appointed as Executive Officer, Grade 11, in Municipal Committee, Faridkot for one year vide order dated May 8, 1973. passed by respondent No. 1. His term was extended till further orders vide order dated May 15, 1974. He was transferred and posted in Municipal Committee, Kotkapara in Faridkot District vide order dated November 5, 1975. He was again transferred and posted as Executive Officer, Fazilka vide order dated January, 1977. Vide Notification dated April 6, 1976, issued under Section 38 (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act), the Punjab Municipal Service of Executive Officers was constituted. The Petitioner's case was examined by respondent No. 1 under sub section (6) of Section 38 of the Act. The petitioner was not approved for appointment as Executive Officer and was relieved from the post consequent upon the abolition of the post of Executive Officer with effect from Oct. 14, 1976. The petitioner made a representation and respondent No. 1 vide his order dated February 3, 1981 offered him the post of Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 759-1300 and he was appointed as Superintendent, Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran against a vacant post. The petitioner made representation dated August 12, 1981 to respondent No. 2 that his case was not properly considered by the Screening Committee. The representation was accepted and the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer Class III and it was decided that the period of his absence from service wet". June 15, 1977 to August 8, 1981 would be treated as the leave of the kind due to him and it would not be counted towards his experience. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order dated January 19, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 and he filed a fresh representation, on February, 26, 1982. This representation was not decided but the petitioner was posted in Municipal Committee, Mulaapur vide order dated June 25, 1982. The petitioner again made a representation reiterating his earlier claim on July 20, 1982 and vide order dated October 14, 1983 passed by respondent No. 2, orders sanctioning the leave from June 15, 1977 to August 10, 1981 were issued but it was ordered that this period shall not be treated for the perpose of experience. The petitioner's fresh representation was rejected by respondent No. 2 on March 26, 1985. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No. 646, dated May 23, 1985 and the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 on August 17, 1987 (copy Annexure P-18 ).;