O.P. Kapur and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This is a petition of O.P. Kapur, Sajjan Singh and P.N. Thapar, who are now all Assistants in the Punjab State Electricity Board, challenging the appointments made on the advice of the first respondent, the State of Punjab, of their juniors A. N. Bajaj an 1 Sukhdev Singh, respondents 3 & 4, to the positions of Assistants, despite the contrary recommendation of the second respondent, Punjab State Electricity Board. The petitioners, when they moved this Court were Upper Division Clerks and have also since been promoted as Assistants. The complaint in effect embodied in the writ petition is against the earlier promotions of their juniors, respondents 3 and 4.

The salient facts on which the petition is based have never been in dispute. The petitioners were working as clerks attached to the Electricity Branch of the Punjab Government for many years. The distinction between junior and senior clerks having been put to an end by the Punjab Government on 1st of January, 1955, there resulted an integrated cadre of clerks in one uniform scale. Such was the position at the time of merger of the erstwhile States of Punjab and Pepsu on 31st of October, 1956. The strength of the cadre of clerks in the headquarters of the Punjab Works Department, Electricity Branch, was fixed at 136 by the Integration Department of the Punjab Government and 25 of these were to be filled by the clerks from the State of Pepsu. The old rule embodied in para 13 of Appendix 1(M) of the Manual of / Order of Punjab Public Works Department, Electricity Branch, providing that a junior clerk will not be promoted to a higher scale without passing examination in Papers I to IV, was preserved even after the cadre of different categories of clerks had been unified and the States of Punjab and Pepsu had merged. No one could, therefore, be appointed an Assistant without having passed a departmental examination contemplated under this rule. The case of the petitioners is that they had passed out the departmental examination before respondents 3 and 4 and were otherwise senior to them in the list of clerks and in consequence complained of the earlier appointments of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistants. It may be worth mentioning that the Punjab State Electricity Board had resisted the advice of the Punjab State regarding these appointments but ultimately it yielded in the larger interest of integration. According to the Punjab Government, respondents 3 and 4, who were placed at Nos. 13 and 52 in the joint seniority list of the integrated clerks were placed higher to the petitioners and it was accordingly advised that they should be given the first available chances to the post of Assistant after they had passed the departmental examination. As a result of this advice, the petitioners have come to be placed junior to respondents 3 and 4 as Assistants and the question for determination is whether this Court should interfere with the orders of the State of Punjab on a question of sheer seniority ? It is well to observe that under the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, it is thus provided in clauses 22 and 23:

Any case of glaring inequality or apparent hardship that may result from the integration of service in accordance with these rules may be set right on an ad hoc basis by the Integration Council or to the extent empowered by the Council, by the Integration Committee.

For purposes of determining the seniority of any person or his chances of promotion by seniority, these rules shall have effect notwithstanding any other rules relating to such person in force for the time being in the State of Punjab.

The rules of the Electricity Branch that a person should be considered for the post of an Assistant after he has passed the departmental examination and his position should be determined in the cadre of the senior scale according to the date of the passing of the examination can thus be overridden by the decisions of the Integration Council and the Committee which are empowered to decide individual cases on ad hoc basis. It may not always be possible to strike a just balance between the rival claimants belonging to the erstwhile States of Pepsu and Punjab on basis of departmental and statutory rules and the Integration Committee and the Council have therefore been empowered to make ad hoc appointments to achieve fairness on the one hand and avoid hardship on the other; it would manifestly be unwise and improper for Courts to interfere with such discretion, particularly when no mala fides have been established or alleged. It has not been alleged in the petition nor has been argued by Mr. Sibal that the State of Punjab has been animated by malice or that its Integration Committee has not attempted to set right a ease of apparent hardship or inequality. It was admitted by the counsel that the petitioners have had their cases reviewed even by the Integration Council which is the final Tribunal to adjudicate on integration disputes. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in writ proceedings and would only content myself by saying that the appropriate authority may, if it considers proper, give consideration to the claims of the petitioners who at the relevant time were shown senior to respondents 3 and 4 as clerks before their promotion to the grade of Assistants.

The petition will be dismissed without any order as to costs.