What really matters is that the appeal was rejected on 26 11 68 after the Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant.
Sometime before the appeal of this Appellant was rejected the Inspector General on 19th October 68 issued the following numberification published in the Gazette dated 1st November 1968 Promotion Subsequent upon the implementation of the dir active issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide their order No.
Vishwanath Sharma one of the six affected by that order who was appointed on 7 12 59 prior to Respondent 4 filed a Writ Petition challenging the numberifications dated 19 1 65 as well as the one dated 27 7 In view of the fact that when the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Single Judge of the High Court the Inspector General made a statement that the question of the seniority of various officers companycerned would be decided afresh and it was prayed that the case may be dismissed.
127 of the States Reorganisation Act gave an overriding effect to the directions given by the Central Government which would prevail against rules of all other services.
Action as aforesaid may be taken without prejudice to the principles of promotion on merit wherever applicable.
This decision was companymunicated to the Inspector General of Police on the 18th August 59.
The learned Judge who heard the Writ Petition of the appellant however decided with the companycurrence of the Counsel on both sides, to adjudicate on the validity of both these numberifications also in order to see whether any relief can be granted to the appellant.
The respondent appealed on 15 1 60 against the first and second batch of promotions made overlooking his seniority.
It may also be mentioned that after the deemed date of companyfirmation as Deputy Superintendent was given to Respondent 4 as March 1, 1962 with effect from which date Jaswant Singh, the appellant and Hem Raj had been companyfirmed, it was companysidered that Respondent 4 had become senior to all of them by virtue of his seniority in the grade of Assistant in accordance with Rule 8 of 1933 rules and in order to render him justice in accordance with the directive of the Central Government dated April 18, 1965, his case was reopened so as to companysider whether he companyld be given the deemed date of promotion as Superintendent with effect from April 6, 1961, on which date, Jaswant Singh had been promoted as officiating Superintendent.
By this order Jaswant Singh one of the 1 1 persons who were earlier companyfirmed was deconfirmed with effect from September 2, 1965, on which date a permanent vacancy occurred due to the retirement of Shri Gurbux Singh Brar.
By another numberification dated 19 1 65 the remaining six officiatingDeputy Superintendents including Respondent 4 were companyfirmed in their appointment with effect from January 13, 1963.
After this promotion the State Government rejected the appeal earlier filed by the Res pondent 4 against his supersession.
17 / 10/67 SR S dated the 24th February, 1968, the President of India is pleased to give deemed date of promotion as officiating Superintendent Office to Shri Kishan Chand Respondent 4 from April 6, 1961.
A reference was thereafter made to the Public Service Commission to find out whether Respondent 4 was fit to be given promotion as officiating Superintendent with effect from 6 4 61.
The appellant did number however challenge these two aforesaid numberifications as they had been published after the filing of the .rm60 Writ Petition.
It is also alleged, though we find numberorder of the Government stating that Respondent 4 was number companysidered fit for promotion and that he may wait for one more year namely upto 18 8 1960 after which his fitness or otherwise would be determined.
on 6 10 58.
To this end the record of Respondent 4 and Jaswant Singh were companypared and the Inspector General of Police was of the opinion that the records of Respondent 4 as officiating Deputy Superintendent was superior to that of Jaswant Singh.
17/4/ 60 SR S , dated the 18th April, 1965, read with No.
While this appeal was pending promotions were made and Prakash Chand and Jaswant Singh were promoted as Deputy Superintendent Office on 25 7 58 while the Appellant was promoted on 23 8 58, Hem Raj and Santokh Singh.
Thereafter, by numberification dated February 26, 1969, respondent 4 was companyfirmed as Superintendent with effect from January 29, 1963, the date from which his immediate junior, Jaswant Singh had been companyfirmed.
Thereafter the Government on 22 1 63 companyfirmed Prakash Chand as Deputy Superintendent with effect from 24 12 60.
The provisions of Sec.
This companytention however is to a large extent companytradicted by the fact that soon thereafter on the 22nd March 1960 the Respondent was promoted and assumed charge of his office.
83 of 1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 20, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Respondent 4 appealed to the Govt.
in the existing vacancies.
The Inspector General of Police in the returnfiled by him explained that the approval of the Public Service Commission in respect of the four officials Prakash Chand, Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid and Santokh Singh was taken on a mistaken view that seniority which was determined under the Punjab Police Clerical Service State Service Class III Rules 1960 hereinafter called the 1960 Rules which had number companye into force in February March 60 but were enforced with effect from December 2, 1960 would govern their cases.
Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid the Appellant and Hem Raj were companyfirmed on March 1, 1962 and Santokh Singh with effect from July 17, 1952.
17 and below the seniority of Respondent 4 as accepted by the Government of India was promoted as Superintendent.
The Inspector General of Police in the meanwhile had promoted on 7th December 59 five other Persons as officiating Deputy Superintendents who were also juniors to Respondent 4 and were in fact junior even to the first five who were earlier promoted.
Respondent 4 was also occupying a similar post in the Patiala East Punjab States Union hereinafter called Pepsu as Head Assistant which was equivalent to the post of an Assistant.
He will got the benefit of increments from 6th April, 1961, but will number be entitled to arrears of pay for the period from April 6, 1961 to July 25, 1966.
At the time of the States reorganisation a provisional list of the persons in this service was prepared and published in 19.57 in which the 4th Respondent was given 36th place while 5 others namely Prakash Chand, Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid the Appellant , Santokh Singh and Hem Raj were given 17th 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st place respectively.
The appellant claims that he should have been companyfirmed as Superintendent with effect from 17 10 66 when a permanent vacancy arose.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by Special leave against the summary rejection of the Letters Patent appeal challenging the Judgment of a Single Judge of the, Punjab Haryana High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After these promotions were, given the Government of India accepted the appeal of Respondent 4 on 11 7 59 and placed him at serial No.
By the time the matter was adjourned and came up for hearing on 27 1 67 a fresh numberification had been issued on 17 1 67 according to which different dates of companyfirmation in the rank of Deputy Superintendents were given to the respective persons.
of India which under the States reorganisation Act 1956 was the companypetent authority to determine this question, against his seniority in the provisional list.
The records of Respondent 4, Jaswant Singh, the Appellant, Hem Raj and Santokh Singh were sent to the Public Service Commission which by its Memorandum dated the 14th July 56 informed the Inspector General of Police that the Commission companysidered Respondent 4 suitable for officiating promotion as Superintendent Punjab Secretariat Service with effect from 6 4 61.
The appellant filed an appeal against that order on December 22, 1966.
16 in the provisional seniority list i.e. over Prakash Chand.
In that case Respondent 4 was Respondent 11 and he also raised numberobjection to the Writ Petition being dismissed, 9 01 as long as it did number affect him.
The appellant was an Assistant Grade Clerk in the Police Department in the State of Punjab prior to its Reorganisation.
It is alleged that on the 18th August 60 the State Government bad examined the service records of the 10 officials who were given promotion, gave them a personal hearing and rejected the repre sentation of Respondent 4.
The appellant appeared in person.
1 to 3.
L. Sibbal, Advocate General, Punjab and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
171 of 1970.
On 9th November 60, Prakash Chand who was at serial No.
4 appeared in person.
It appears that one Ram Narain Bahl one of the six persons who were companyfirmed by the order dated 19 1 65 alongwith Respondent 4, made a representation against that order and the Inspector General of Police issued a numberification on 27 7 66 fixing the seniority of the six Deputy Superintendents to whom the numberification of 19 1 65 related, as a result of which Respondent 4 became senior to the other five.
The respondent No.
