IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16811 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 07, 2009 Hargurinder Kaur & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gagan Pradeep S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) vide which vacant post of Superintendent Grade-II in Zila Parishad is sought to be filled up by way of transferring respondent No.6 (Gurpreet Kaur) from Panchayat CWP No.16811 of 2008 [2] Samiti, Malout. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No.6 from Panchayat Samiti, Malout to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in Zila Parishad, Patiala would be in violation of Rule 4 of Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1965. Contention is that for an employee of Zila Parishad, appointing authority would be Zila Parishad whereas in case of an employee of Panchayat Samiti, appointing authority would be the Panchayat Samiti. Brief reference to facts is required. It has been pleaded that the petitioners have been serving in Zila Parishad, Patiala, for a considerable period. It has been pleaded that admittedly petitioner No.1 is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Zila Parishad, Patiala. After retirement of petitioner No.1, the other petitioners would become eligible as per their seniority. Be that as it may, one Rajinder Singh serving as Superintendent in Zila Parishad, was to superannuate, however, vide Annexure P-1 dated 2.4.2008, Director –cum- Secretary to CWP No.16811 of 2008 [3] Government of Punjab, Rural Development & Panchayats Department granted approval to engage said Rajinder Singh on contract basis for a period of three months. Under the circumstances, Rajinder Singh continued to serve as Superintendent Grade-II in Zila Parishad, Patiala. Perusal of Annexure P-2 dated 22.7.2008 indicates that while considering the application of Rajinder Singh for being retained as Superintendent, the request was rejected with the following stipulations:- “The Department shows its unwillingness to the proposal sent through letter under reference for engaging Shri Rajinder Singh, Superintendent Grade II in the office of Zila Parishad, Patiala, on contract basis. 2. For filling up the post of Superintendent Grade II, a panel/Service record of Senior Assistant/ Junior Assistant and Clerks, as per seniority list, of Zila Parishad, Patiala be sent to the Government immediately so that necessary action may be taken in the matter.” It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that reference to the extracted portion (Para 2) would indicate that respondents were required to fill up the post of Superintendent Grade-II from a panel of Senior/ Junior Assistants and Clerks as per seniority list of Zila Parishad, Patiala. Perusal of Annexure P-4 indicates that office of Zila Parishad, Patiala forwarded the names of Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 for consideration of appointment as Superintendent CWP No.16811 of 2008 [4] Grade-II. Annexure P-4 however makes it evident that petitioner No.1 is the senior most Accountant and had been recommended to be promoted for the post of Superintendent (Grade II), Zila Parishad, Patiala. No departmental or vigilance enquiry was pending and work & conduct was also satisfactory. Learned counsel has pointed out that dehors the entire exercise undertaken, vide the impugned order (Annexure P-5), respondent No.6 (Gurpreet Kaur) has been posted/ transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Malout for appointment in Zila Parishad, Patiala. Rule 4 of Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1965 reads as under:- “4. Appointing Authority : (A). All appointments to the Service shall be made:- (i). In the case of employees of a Zila Parishad by the Zila Parishad concerned; and ii). In the case of employees of a Panchayat Samiti, and also in the case of Secretary of a Gram Panchayat, by Panchayat Samiti concerned.” Learned counsel has asserted that in terms of the Rule, respondent No.6 who is an employee of Panchayat Samiti, could not have been posted in Zila Parishad, Patiala. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In Para 7 of the reply (on merits), the following has been stated:- “That the contents of para No.7 are admitted to the extent CWP No.16811 of 2008 [5] that representation of petitioners has been received and process of promotion will be started against the vacant posts existing in the district and the name of eligible employees will be considered after Model Code of Conduct is lifted.” From the stand of the respondents, it transpires that the respondents were waiting for lifting of Model Code of Conduct imposed on account of elections. The Model Code of Conduct has since been lifted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the fact that petitioner No.1 is the senior most as per the admitted position; vide Annexure P-4, name of the petitioners had been recommended with a stipulation that petitioner No.1 is the senior most and without any blemish on record and eligible; and respondent No.6, in terms of Rule 4 could not have been appointed on a post that fell vacant in Zila Parishad, Patiala, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) October 07, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?