Back
1968 Supreme(P&H) 128
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J.
Y.P.Chowdhry
Versus
State Of Punjab
C.W. No. 2479 of 1966,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1968
The quota for promoted officers under Rule 4 was mandatory and could not be exceeded. The Government's action in promoting officers in excess of the quota was illegal.
Headnote:
PUNJAB FOREST SERVICE CLASS II RULES, 1941 - RULE 4 - RULE 8 - RULE 10 - INTERPRETATION - SENIORITY - CONFIRMATION - PROMOTION - DIRECT RECRUITMENT - QUOTA - VALIDITY OF ORDERS EXTENDING PROBATION PERIOD - LEGALITY OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS - FIXATION OF SENIORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a direct recruit to the Punjab Forest Service Class II, challenged the validity of orders extending his probation period, confirming promoted officers against posts reserved for direct recruits, and fixing his seniority below that of promoted officers. He argued that the quota for promoted officers under Rule 4 was mandatory and could not be exceeded, and that his confirmation should have been made on the expiry of his probation period under Rule 8(3).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 4, which prescribed the quota for direct recruits and promoted officers, was mandatory and could not be exceeded. The Government's action in promoting officers in excess of the quota was illegal. The Court also held that the Governor's order extending the petitioner's probation period after the expiry of three years from his initial appointment was violative of Rule 8(3). The Court further held that the provisions of Rule 10, which dealt with seniority, had to be construed together with Rule 4, and that the dates of appointment mentioned in Rule 10 referred to substantive appointments made in compliance with Rule 4. The Court found that the impugned orders were bad in law and must be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the quota for promoted officers under Rule 4 was mandatory and could not be exceeded? 2. Whether the Government's action in promoting officers in excess of the quota was illegal? 3. Whether the Governor's order extending the petitioner's probation period after the expiry of three years from his initial appointment was violative of Rule 8(3)? 4. Whether the provisions of Rule 10, which dealt with seniority, had to be construed together with Rule 4? 5. Whether the dates of appointment mentioned in Rule 10 referred to substantive appointments made in compliance with Rule 4?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 4, which prescribed the quota for direct recruits and promoted officers, was mandatory and could not be exceeded. The Government's action in promoting officers in excess of the quota was illegal. 2. The Governor's order extending the petitioner's probation period after the expiry of three years from his initial appointment was violative of Rule 8(3). 3. The provisions of Rule 10, which dealt with seniority, had to be construed together with Rule 4. 4. The dates of appointment mentioned in Rule 10 referred to substantive appointments made in compliance with Rule 4.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and issued a writ in the nature of mandamus, requiring the respondents to adjust the seniority of the petitioner and other officers similarly placed and to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law.
Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the notifications, dated 18.10.1966 and 6.6.1966 (Annexures A-10, A-11 and A/6) issues by the respondent State, and also for a mandamus to respondent No. 1 to treat the petitioner as confirmed member of the Punjab Forest Service Class II.
2. The petitioner, along with four others, namely, Sarvshri S.K. Kapur, H.C. Sharma, Kehar Singh and Prem Singh Malik, was selected in October 1959 by the Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment to Punjab Forest Service Class II against eleven vacancies in that Service existing at that time. After the selection, the petitioner and the other four persons were sent for training to the Indian Forest College, Dehradun, and they completed the Diploma Course in Forestry for two years. The petitioner was thereafter posted as an Attached Officer in Silviculture Research Forest Division, with headquarters at Kulu (now in Himachal Pradesh), on 2.10.1961 (afternoon). This appointment was notified by the Punjab Government by notification dated 10.8.1962.
The Service has to be recruited :-
(a) by direct appointment;
(b) by promotion of selected Forest Rangers.
This is subject to the proviso that the promotees shall not exceed 33-1/8 per cent of the total number of members of the Service. It follows that the remaining 66-2/3 per cent of the posts are to be filled by direct appointment. Thus the State could not under the Rules, promote Forest Rangers to the Service in excess of the prescribed quota. However, in order to meet the exigencies of the work, it promoted some of the Forest Rangers to Punjab Forest Service Class II purely as a temporary measure vide letter, dated 20.8.1959 from the Under Secretary, Forest & Game Preservation, to the Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission. It is further clear from letter dated 12.8.1958 of the Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, addressed to the Under Secretary, Forest & Game Preservation, that the Government were contemplating to amend the Punjab Forest Service Class II Rules, 1941, (hereinafter referred to as Rules) but the Rules have not been amended so far. In 1959 there were 11 permanent and 5 temporary posts in the cadre of Punjab Forest Service Class II. Accordingly, ten posts in Punjab Forest Service Class II had to be filled by direct recruitment. Government, therefore, decided that five permanent posts in Punjab Forest Service Class II should be filled by making direct recruitment to make good the quota of 66-2/3 per cent of the cadre of Punjab Forest Service Class II and accordingly sent a requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Government also ordered that the promoted Punjab Forest Service Class II Officers, who were in excess of the 33-1/3 per cent strength of the Service be reverted as Forest Rangers. This is apparent from their letter, dated 22.7.1959 (Copy annexure A/1)
3. The petitioner duly completed his two years period of probation in Punjab Forest Service Class II on 3.10.1963. During the period of his probation his work was satisfactory. The Government did not pass any order under Rule 8(3) extending his period of probation. Consequently, in terms of the Rules the petitioner must be deemed to have been confirmed with effect from 3.10.1963. Respondent No. 1, however, mala fide did not pass orders of confirmation of the petitioner as it wanted to benefit respondents 2 to 19 who had earlier been promoted merely as a stop-gap measure from the rank of Forest Rangers.
4. In April, 1964, there were eleven posts in the Service and, according to Rule 4, four permanent posts were available for promoted officers. Government accordingly confirmed four promotees by means of its order, dated 18.4.1964. In the same order it was mentioned that the petitioner and other colleagues of his batch were not being confirmed as they had not cleared the depart
