S.S. Cheema and Others vs The Punjab Mandi Board and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition is at the instance of petitioners, who are all Junior Engineers in Punjab Mandi Board that seek for a direction that the 3rd respondent must vacate the office of the Junior Engineer (Civil) and to quash the order of appointment issued in favour of the 3rd respondent under Annexure P-5. The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners are all regular Junior Engineers (Civil) working in the Board and they were regularized by order dated 27.03.1992. Before the regularization, they had been working on ad hoc basis. The 3rd respondent had been brought in on deputation as Junior Engineer on 24.08.1987 and the grievance is for consideration for promotion to a higher post as Assistant Engineer. In terms of Rule 8 of Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board 8 years of experience as Junior Engineer is necessary and the 3rd respondent who had been brought on deputation in the year 1987 will qualify for promotion to a higher post in preference to the petitioners, who have all been regularized only in the year 1992. The prayer is, therefore, that he should vacate his office. Other ground of challenge in the petition is that there is no provision available for absorbing a person brought on deputation from the government service. The order issued on 26.07.1983 absorbing the third respondent constitutes a violation of their own rights to be considered to a higher post at the relevant time and also a breach of the existing regulation relating to method of recruitment. I have considered the Punjab State Marketing Board Class III Service Rules of 1983. These Rules provide for three modes of appointment: (i) direct recruitment; (ii) promotion and (iii) transfer by way of deputation. A transfer by way of deputation as contemplated in Appendix B to Rule 8 refers to class of persons from amongst the Junior Engineer (Civil) working in a Department of Government of Punjab, who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of two years. If a person could be brought on deputation, unless there is a prohibition anywhere against grant of absorption, I cannot understand as to how the existing employees who are directly employed with the Board could have an objection that they might lose out on issue of seniority to the 3rd respondent. There is a contention taken in the petition that Rules do not provide for absorption. As I have observed that if the Rules provide for three distinct modes of recruitment, a person who is brought on deputation who is willing to be absorbed is entitled to be considered for absorption if the candidate himself does not have any objection. So long as there are no Rules prohibiting such absorption, there could be no writ issued to quash the order of absorption made by the impugned order.

Both as regards prayer for mandamus directing the petitioner to vacate the office and for quashing the order that there is no scope for absorption of a person brought on deputation, the petitioners cannot succeed and the writ petition ought to fail. The writ petition is dismissed.