Harblas Balu vs State of Punjab and Others

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This order shall dispose of CWP No. 4497 of 1987 and CWP No. 7243 of 1987, as facts and question of law are similar in both the petitions. For facility, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 4497 of 1987.

The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to promote him as Sub Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 23.4.1982, i.e. the date when his juniors, i.e. respondents No. 3 to 5, were promoted to the aforesaid post on regular basis. The petitioner has also prayed that directions be issued to the respondent No. 1 to decide his appeal (Annexure P-3) dated 4.6.1982.

The petitioner was appointed as Sectional Officer in Punjab PWD (Public Health) Department on 2.12.1969. The petitioner was involved in some case and was taken in police custody in 19.1.1976 and due to this reason his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the period 21.8.1975 to 31.3.1976 was written adverse. The petitioner was also placed under suspension during the pendency of the case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. However, the case registered against the petitioner resulted in his acquittal and hence he was reinstated in service by the Superintending Engineer, Punjab PWD(PH) Circle, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 30.11.1978.

In the year 1981, a panel of senior-most Sectional Officers was sent to the Government for screening for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. The name of the petitioner was also sent alongwith the panel of Sectional Officers. The screening was conducted on 22.10.1981. But because of the adverse reports earned by the petitioner, the Screening Committee/PPSC did not find the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. The representation of the petitioner for regular promotion from back date was also considered by the Screening Committee and the same was rejected.

The grouse of the petitioner is that as respondents No. 3 to 5, who were junior to him, were promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer prior to him ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner, therefore, he also deserves to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted.

The next contention of the petitioner is that he was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on ad hoc basis vide order Annexure P-7 alongwith other persons and that his reversion by his Department on the recruitment of regular candidates by the PPSC is wholly arbitrary.

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, wherein it has been averred that the case of the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates was forwarded to the Punjab Public Service Commission for screening. The Screening Committee/PPSC did not find the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer due to unsatisfactory service record and hence the persons, whose service records were satisfactory, were promoted prior to the petitioner and the petitioner was ignored. The representation of the petitioner was also rejected.

As regards the second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer in the year 1985 on ad hoc basis. It was specifically mentioned in the ad hoc promotional order that as and when regular candidate, as recommended by the PPSC, would be made available, the petitioner could be reverted back. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the ad hoc period promotion of the petitioner was for a period of 6 months or as and when the regular candidates are made available by the PPSC. Learned Counsel submits that once the candidates to the regular post of Sub Divisional Engineer were selected by the PPSC, the petitioner was not entitled to regular promotion to the said post.

I have perused the entire case file and heard the arguments of both the sides at length.

The case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer was sent alongwith other eligible candidates to the PPSC. The Screening Committee of PPSC did not find the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer as his service record was unsatisfactory. The petitioner''s representation for his regular promotion was also rejected by the Screening Committee. Thus, the present case is ''no case'' where the rightful claim of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily. The petitioner was considered alongwith other eligible candidates and because of his poor service record he was not promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer prior to his juniors. Hence no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.

As far as the second contention of the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the reply clearly shows that the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer purely on ad hoc basis. It was clearly mentioned in his promotional order that his promotion is a stop-gap arrangement till such time the regular candidates are not recommended by the PPSC. But once the regular candidates were selected by PPSC, the petitioner has no claim to be regularly appointed to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.