Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-In this judgment we shall deal with certain appeals relating to officers of the State of Punjab. We shall also deal with Interlocutory Applications Nos. 10-12/98 filed by the Rail­ways and IAs 4-6 by the Union of India. We shall also deal with cer­tain contempt applications and other Interlocutory applications.

I. C.A. Nos. 316-317/99 :

2. The two appeals C.A. Nos. 316-317/99 have been preferred by the gener­al candidates of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWPs 10756 of 1997 and 10759 of 1997 dated 8.10.1998. The High Court, in the judgment under appeal, followed Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab1 in preference to the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. v. State of Punjab2, hereinafter called Ajit Singh No. I. The officers here belong to the Punjab Education Department and the con­test is for the post of Principals governed by the Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976.

3. Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to 3 filed in Ajit Singh by the State of Punjab (C.As. 3792-94 /89). That judgment will be described here as Ajit Singh (II) for convenience.

4. The facts of these two Civil Appeals are as follows : C.W.P. No. 10756/97 was filed by Ms. Gurbachan Kaur and 6 others (Head Mistress­es) all belonging to the reserved category praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the promotion order dated 3.7.97 and for a manda­mus seeking promotion of the said writ petitioners as Principals. Similarly, C.W.P. No. 10759 of 1997 was filed by Charan Singh and 9 others (Head Masters) all belonging to the reserved category for similar relief and also for promoting the writ petitioners in the place of the opposite party. They impleaded the appellants (general candidates) as respondents in the writ petition. The appellant Jatin­der Pal Singh in CA No. 316 of 1999 was a respondent in C.W.P. 10759/97. The array of the parties shows that the writ petitioners (Head Masters/Head Mistresses) (reserved category) were all working as Head Masters in 1997 while the non-official respondents (general candidates) were working as Senior Lecturer/Principal or as Deputy District Education Officers. The general candidates have come up in appeal because the High Court has followed Jagdish Lal.

5. So far as this department is concerned, the relevant rules are as follows. Under Rule 10 of the Class II Rules, the posts of Principal, Deputy District Education Officers, Senior Lecturers etc. are to be filled up by promotion in respect of 75% and 25% by direct recruit­ment. Under Class II Rules, 1976, Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 states that all appointments to the posts shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and no member of the service shall have any right for promotion merely on the basis of seni­ority. Rule 12 of the Rules states that inter se seniority of the members of the service shall be determined by the continuous length of service on a post counted from the date of appointment etc. appendix B (Rule 9) specifies the re­quired years of teaching experience as head of High/Higher Schools (i.e. Head Master/Head Mistress) or equivalent post. As stated in Ajit Singh No. II, the seniority rule of continuous officiation is inter­linked with the promotional rule based on equal opportunity and cannot be delinked.

6. Admittedly, the promotion of the reserved candidates from the post of Master/ Mistress to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress was gov­erned by roster points in Punjab, by the Circular dated 19.7.69 re­ferred to in our judgment in Ajit Singh II delivered today, which stated that ‘roster points are seniority points’. The writ petitioners (Master/Mistress) who belonged to the reserved admittedly got promo­tion as Head Master/Head Mistress on the basis of such a roster. On the date when the impugned order promoting the respondents was made (i.e. 3.7.1997), the law as laid down by this Court in Ajit Singh’s case (judgment dated 1.3.1996) was h