IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4229 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Omkar Nath Airi, Superintendent Grade-I, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab PWD B & R Branch, Patiala. ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, PWD B&R/P.H. Branches, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Advocate, and Mr.Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 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 point of dispute brought before this Court is the determination of the time from when the petitioner is to be taken as promoted from Superintendent Grade-III to Superintendent Grade-I. It is not denied that the petitioner, when he was officiating in the lower post, was the senior-most amongst the persons eligible for promotion that included respondents 4 and 5 as well. The department had recommended the panel for selection and had given the details of the fact that the petitioner was the senior-most. The appointment to the promotion post required to be done through the Civil Writ Petition No.4229 of 1986 (O&M) - 2 - Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and when it was sent to them, they noticed the previous 5 years confidential reports and assigned to the 5th respondent relatively higher grading of 20 marks, the 4th respondent 19 marks and the petitioner 18 marks. On the relative higher grading, the 4th respondent had been taken as promoted from 28.10.1983, the 5th respondent from 28.02.1984 and the petitioner was left out of reckoning. He had been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 28.02.1984 for a period of 6 months subject to the approval of PPSC on the post which fell vacant on the retirement of P.C. Chadha w.e.f. 31.01.1984. While approval led to the selection of the respondents 4 and 5 to the promotion post on the two different dates, the petitioner merely obtained ad hoc promotion but not appeared by PPSC. 2. The ground of challenge in the petition is contained in the fact that the promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to the approval of the PPSC. It is admitted by the State in its reply that the petitioner was senior-most in the lower post. It is also admitted that he fulfilled the qualification for promotion and accordingly included in the panel for consideration for promotion. The PPSC, however, rejected the petitioner out of reckoning only because in the relative grading the respondents 4 and 5 were assessed higher than the petitioner. The PPSC in its reply states that the 4th respondent had been preferred only because the promotion was to be done on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. It is not seen Civil Writ Petition No.4229 of 1986 (O&M) - 3 - how this consideration of merit-cum-seniority obtained relevance where it is stated by the petitioner and admitted by the department that the consideration for promotion was only on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. If the issue of promotion must have been on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, then seniority alone will prevail unless the promotee fell below the minimum benchmark necessary for being considered to the promotion post. When he was included in the panel and it was stated that he was the senior-most and when he fulfilled the qualification for being promoted, the issue of merit could not have been relevant for taking the 4th respondent to the higher post over the legitimate claims of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner himself was being appointed on ad hoc basis. This can be no answer to an issue when the petitioner's complaint is that a person junior to him had been promoted from an earlier date than him. The promotion has been granted to the 4th respondent effective from 24.10.1983 initially and recommended by PPSC to take effect from 28.10.1983. The petitioner will be treated as having been promoted from the same date when the 4th respondent was promoted and treated as senior over both the respondents 4 & 5, with all attendant benefits. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.10.2011 sanjeev