IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10366 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2011 Tarsem Chand son of Meli Ram, Workshop Foreman, Government Junior Technical School, Kapurthala. ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Technical Education, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondents 3 to 11. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for consideration of his right to be promoted as a Foreman Instructor from the day when his juniors were alleged to have been promoted. The petitioner gives out the names of respondents 3 to 11 as persons junior to him. The contention of the petitioner is that he had joined as a Workshop Instructor at Hoshiarpur in February, 1967 and he was found eligible Civil Writ Petition No.10366 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as a Workshop Foreman through a communication issued to him on 08.08.1986, but it was not, however, carried forward with the order of promotion. 2. The contention is that there were five Government polytechnics at Batala, Hoshiarpur, Bathinda, Guru Teg Bahadur Garh and Amritsar and one Junior Technical Education School at Kapurthala. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had been posted at the Junior Technical School at Kapurthala. It appears that the Workshop Instructor's posts at polytechnics as well as Junior Technical School had been merged and a joint seniority list had been prepared in the year, 1975-76. In each of the polytechnics, four posts of Foreman Instructors were created on a scale of Rs.940- 1850 plus Rs.100 as special pay. Their grievance is that the petitioner had not been promoted, in spite of vacancies having arisen and in spite of he being a senior at serial No.40 and persons, who had joined as Workshop Instructors after 1976 and who had been admittedly juniors to the petitioner, had been promoted. The petitioner would cite the instance of one Ranbir Singh, who was Drawing Instructor (Mechanical) at Junior Technical School and was working under the petitioner and later had been transferred as Drawing Instructor in a polytechnic and later promoted as Lecturer (Mechanical). He had come back as a Principal of the school where the petitioner was working. The petitioner would point out that the Civil Writ Petition No.10366 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - post of the Lecturer was equivalent to the Foreman Instructor and the Principal's post was itself above the post of the Lecturer. 3. The petitioner also has a grievance about the creation of groups in various trades and assigning seniority in each of such grades. The petitioner had been in Group-I that comprised of machine trade, turning trade, fitting trade, and metrology (engineering measurement). The creation of these groups was said to have been a subject of challenge before this Court in CWP No.3253 of 1989. The petitioner would point out that in the order of promotion issued on 22.04.1988 (Annexure P-7), there were persons, who were juniors to him in Group-I. The petitioner would contend that the person at serial No.6, namely, Dalbir Singh had been junior to him, but he had been promoted under the impugned order. 4. The written statement was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 denying the fact that Ranbir Singh ever worked under him to be promoted as a Principal. It is stated that the Government Junior Technical School was functioning under the administrative control of the Technical Educational Wing, while there was an Industrial Training Wing which was separate. It was decided to transfer the control of Government Junior Technical School to Industrial Training School and at that time, Ranbir Singh was posted as a Principal at a Government Junior Technical Education School, Kapurthala. I do not find the objection taken by the petitioner on Civil Writ Petition No.10366 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - this ground is established. 5. I am not also prepared to go into the question of whether the categories made under various groups was proper or not for deciding the issue of seniority and promotion, but assuming that the challenge to such group made in CWP No.3253 of 1989 has still not come to any finality, the case could still require consideration of whether the petitioner would have been denied promotion on the day when one of his juniors, namely, Dalbir Singh, was stated to have been promoted by the impugned order dated 22.04.1988. Dalbir Singh has been arrayed as the 4th respondent in the petition. He has not filed any counter. Against Dalbir Singh, the petitioner's express averment is contained in para 14 of the petition which states, inter alia, that Dalbir Singh placed at serial No.6 in Group-I in the impugned order was actually junior to him. All that we can see from the reply of the State as regards this averment in para 14 is its contention that no person junior to the petitioner in his own category had been promoted. I do not find any specific denial with reference to Dalbir Singh. Elsewhere in the written statement at paragraph 12, the persons, who had been seniors to the petitioner have been specifically named and even in paragraph 14, the persons, who were juniors, but who had been placed in different groups, were said to have been promoted. There is no specific denial that Dalbir Singh was not a junior; there is no proper explanation given as to how Dalbir Singh had been promoted, especially when DPC had earlier Civil Writ Petition No.10366 of 1989 (O&M) - 5 - found the petitioner as eligible for promoted as a Foreman. Even the seniority list of the year 1974 which the respondents' claim was the last occasion when the seniority list had been prepared, has not been filed before this Court. I would, therefore, hold that the denial of promotion to the petitioner was not justified and he was entitled to be considered as promoted on the day when his junior was promoted, namely, w.e.f. 22.04.1988. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The same shall be worked out within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the accrued benefits shall be paid to the petitioner, failing which, the amount determined shall bear interest at 6% from today. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.09.2011 sanjeev