RSA No.695 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.695 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision:18.01.2011. Jagdish Pal Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.1966-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal. Plaintiff-Jagdish Pal Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, is in second appeal. Plaintiff joined services of State of Punjab-defendant- respondent No.1 as Surveyor on 13.05.1964 and was regularized on 16.10.1964. He proceeded on leave from 09.06.1975 till 06.10.1975. However, thereafter he did not join duty and remained absent till 20.04.1989. Plaintiff was chargesheeted for the same and after regular inquiry, final show cause notice for removing the plaintiff from service was issued. However, the punishing authority took lienent view and imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and the absence period was treated as extraordinary leave. The plaintiff in the suit claimed promotion to the RSA No.695 of 2010 (O & M) -2- post of Sectional Officer (now Junior Engineer) with effect from the date his juniors i.e defendant Nos.4 to12 were promoted. During pendency of the suit, defendants No.1 to 3 rejected the plaintiff's representation for promotion vide order dated 15.10.2001. The said order has also been challenged in the suit by amendment of plaint. Consequential relief has also been claimed. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that work and conduct of the plaintiff was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not found suitable for promotion and plaintiff's case for promotion has already been considered and rejected vide order dated 15.10.2001. It was thus pleaded that plaintiff is not entitled to promotion claimed by him. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2007 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgement and decree dated 03.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that on completion of 10 years service as Surveyor, the plaintiff became eligible for promotion. It was also contended that plaintiff's period of absence has since been regularized and he was granted due seniority and, therefore, on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the plaintiff is entitled to promotion with effect from the dates his RSA No.695 of 2010 (O & M) -3- juniors have been promoted. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. On completion of 10 years service, as per instructions dated 02.01.1981 of the State of Punjab, the plaintiff became eligible for being considered for promotion, but the plaintiff cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. The plaintiff had a right to be only considered for promotion. The defendants have considered the plaitniff for promotion, but found him unsuitable and unfit for promotion. Consequently, on the basis of instructions dated 02.01.1981, the plaitniff cannot be granted any relief because the said instructions simply made the plaintiff eligible for being considered for promotion. It is for the concerned authority to determine suitability of the employee for promotion. Court cannot sit in appeal over decision of the competent authority in this regard unless the decision is shown to be completely perverse or arbitrary or suffering from any such other vice. In the instant case, however, order dated 15.10.2001, rejecting the plaintiff's claim for promotion, cannot be said to be suffering from any such vice. On the contrary, it remains undisputed fact that plaintiff remained absent from service for almost 14 years. The said absence itself makes him unsuitable for promotion. Moreover, defendants have considered the work and conduct of the plaintiff and found him unsuitable for promotion. No ground for setting aside the said decision of the competent authority is made out in the instant case. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below against the plaintiff. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons RSA No.695 of 2010 (O & M) -4- and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 18.01.2011. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE