C.W.P. No.13755 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13755 of 1989 Date of Decision. 02.11.2011 Ranjit Singh Sarao s/o Sh. Shri Chanan Singh, Assistant General Manager, Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh at present on deputation with the Punjab Institute of Co-operative Training Chandigarh as Faculty Incharge .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 9. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The petitioner seeks for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him to the post of DGM from the Post, which was occupied as AGM by giving benefit of reservation admissible to Schedules Castes in the matter of promotion to the post of DGM w.e.f. 1.1.1987. The amendment brought to the Common Cadre Rules requiring 4 years experience for promotion before a person occupying post of AGM could be promoted is challenged in this writ petition as not applicable to him since the amendment was brought subsequent to the date when the petitioner become eligible and when a vacancy arose. The rejection of his representation and the proceedings of the Additional Registrar disposing of his petition filed for arbitration under C.W.P. No.13755 of 1989 -2- Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act read with Common Cadres Rules, 1971 are also under challenge through this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has joined as a Senior Accountant in May, 1973 with Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd. at Chandigarh and promoted to the post as Deputy Manager in June, 1977. Thereafter he had been promoted as an Assistant General Manager in October, 1986 where he was to complete the period of probation for one year. The grievance of the petitioner is that vacancies had arisen in the February, 1987 in the four posts of Deputy General Manager and since he fulfilled the requisite qualification, he ought to have been promoted even when he was undergoing probation. The amendment brought to the Common Cadre Rules came into effect only on 10.11.1987 and since a vacancy had fallen even earlier the petitioner could not have been denied the promotion. The amendment itself ought not to have been applied to him. The petitioner also pleads a case of discrimination by pointing out to the yet another person by name Inder Singh Chandiok had been promoted as General Manager from the post of the DGM while he was still under probation on 01.01.1987 although he had not completed 5 years of experience as Deputy General Manager as required under the Rules 3. The petitioner, in this case, can succeed if he can show that there was a vacancy under reserved post against which he could have been promoted at the time when vacancy is said to have arisen. The respondent admits that the reservation policy had been applied to the Bank but the pleading brought through parties do not give any indication of the maintenance of roster and whether a vacancy position fell for a reserved candidate. All that the petitioner is interested in C.W.P. No.13755 of 1989 -3- contending is that he should have been promoted even when he was undergoing probation and a junior person, who was officiating as DGM on probation must have been reverted to accommodate the petitioner. The discrimination which the petitioner complains that Sh. Chandiok had been promoted from the post of Deputy General Manager to the post of General Manager although he did not have 5 years experience, cannot be sought in his favour, for a discrimination in order to be actionable must be between the same classes of persons and the petitioner can not bring a comparison to a person, who was on a higher post. The petitioner is now seeking a claim for a vacancy that is said to have arisen in February, 1987 although he had not completed the period of probation. Admittedly, at the time when he completed the probation in the post of AGM, there was no vacancy. I am not prepared to put his case on par with Sh. Chandiok, who had been promoted from the post of Deputy General Manager to General Manager when he was still undergoing probation and when he had not completed 5 years period. If the petitioner would seek for consideration on the basis of reservation policy, unless it could be shown that there arose a vacancy in the roster point for a scheduled candidate, it is not possible to accommodate his claim. 4. The petitioner’s claim for promotion under such a situation cannot be favourably considered. The petitioner’s claim ought to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 02, 2011 Pankaj*