Case: Gurjit Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab and Another

2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (Class II) on September 14, 1962. When the appellant was working as Class II officer, the Government confirmed five Class II officers on September 16, 1968. The appellant was not one among them. But the order of confirmation stated that one post was reserved for the appellant for his being confirmed when found suitable. One Mehtab Singh who was a junior to the appellant in the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer was confirmed with effect from July 10, 1968.3. The Government informed the Public Service Commission on August 1, 1969 that Mehtab Singh was eligible for promotion to the post of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) and he was promoted to that post. On June 16, 1971, the appellant was promoted as Divisional Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) on ad hoc basis. Thereafter four of the juniors of the appellant were also promoted to the post of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) on ad hoc basis. The appellant was confirmed as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (Class II) on September 22, 1971 with retrospective effect from June 9, 1968. Subsequently the Government informed the Public Service Commission that as the appellant was confirmed, he became senior to Shri Mehtab Singh and therefore, the Government had decided to promote the appellant as Class I officer on regular basis. The Public Service Commission disagreed with the proposal of the Government on the basis that the appellants confirmation with effect from a date earlier than that a Mehtab Singh was not justified. The Commission also gave approval of the regularisation of Shri Mehtab Singhs promotion. On August 16, 1974 the appellant was served with an order stating that he had been reverted from the post of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer to the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. As already stated, it was to quash this order that the appellant filed the writ petition.4. There is no dispute that when the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis to the Class I post, his record of service was unsatisfactory and it was for this reason that the Public Service Commission advised that he should be reverted and that the Government passed the order reverting him to the Class II post.

Reasoning:
7. We think that the grievance of the appellant to the extent that his record of service in the Class I post should have been considered when his juniors were promoted to Class I posts is legitimate. It is true that when the appellant was promoted to Class I on ad hoc basis his record of service in Class II post did not justify his promotion and that was the reason why he was ordered to be reverted. But that is no reason why, when his juniors were subsequently promoted to Class I posts the case of the appellant for promotion to Class I posts should not have been considered on the basis of his service in the Class I post, though his ad hoc promotion to that post was subsequently found to be not justified. If, on the basis of the subsequent record of his service, the appellant was entitled to be promoted in Class I post in preference to any one of his four juniors, there was no justification for the order reverting him to Class II service.