Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- Bakhshish Singh, the appellant, was appointed an Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat on December 7, 1948 and was confirmed on September 1, 1956. Manohar Singh, Sardar Singh, D, Justin and Prithipal Singh Chawala, respondents 3 to 6 were also Assistants in the Punjab Civil, Secretariat, but were junior to the appellant. All of them were working as Assistants on November 1, 1956 when consequent on the States Reorganisation Act, the former States of Punjab and Pepsu were merged into one State. On merger the conditions of service of those employed by the former States of Punjab and Pepsu were protected as provided by sections 115(7) and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act. The rules in force at that time, which governed them, were the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class III) Rules, 1952. Rule 6(I)(b) provided that posts of Superintendents, Records in the service were to be filled by selection among Assistants. Posts of Assistants in charge were to be filled (i) by promotion of Assistants; or (ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service. Rule 6(I)(c) provided that posts of Assistants-in-charge were to be filled (i) by promotion of Assistants; or (ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service. Rule 6(I)(d) provided that the post of Superintendent, Military Secretary to Governors office was to be filled by selection amongsts Assistants. In October, 1963, the posts of Superintendents were made class II posts and came to be governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class II) Rules. Rule 8(I)(a) provided that posts of Superintendents other than the Superintendent in the Press Branch were to be made (i) by promotion from amongst Deputy Superintendents, Assistants-in-charge and Assistants, who are members of the Punjab Civil Secretariate (State Service Class III) with minimum experience of one year as Deputy Superintendent or a total experience of 10 years as an Assistant ; or (ii) by direct recruitment or by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government service holding :a ministerial post. We are not concerned with the proviso to rule 8(I)(a). Rule 8(I)(b) dealt with the post of Superintendent, Press Branch with which also we are not concerned. While this was so, as an experimental measure some posts of Assistant Section Officers were created which were not posts which belonged either to the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class III) or Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class II). Appointment to these posts were to be made from Assistants belonging to the Punjab Civil Secretariate (State Services Class III) on the basis of an examination to be held by the Public Service Commission. Respondents 3 to 6 were selected and appointed as Assistant Section Officers as they were successful in the examination. The appellant either did not appear at the examination or was not successful at the examination. Therefore, he continued as Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III). By an order dated March 14, 1961, the Government expressly provided that the seniority of those appointed as Assistant Section Officers in their normal lines as Assistants will remain unchanged and that their promotion as Deputy Superintendents/Superintendents will be governed by their seniority as Assistants. Even so some Assistant Section Officers were promoted as Superintendents without reference to their seniority as Assistants. The promotions were quashed by the Punjab High Court in Roshan Lal Sharmas case 1966 Cur LJ 848. The State of Punjab thereupon thought fit to amend the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Services Class II) by introducing anew rule 8(I)(a)(i) in the place of the old rule 8(I)(a)(i) which was as follows :-

"(i) By promotion from amongst Assistant Section Officers and such Deputy Superintendents, Assistants-in-charge and Assistants as are members of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (S