The appellants of Punjab Ministerial Qualified Assistant Association C.A. No.
In the aforesaid appeals the questions raised are Whether Rule 12 of the 19S4 Rule invalid?
Printing dispensed with.
This pressure brought in another change in the government policy, which led to the issuance of the impugned Notification dated 21st January, 1991 exempting all such employees who companypleted 18 years of service as clerk from taking recourse through examination for promotion.
Learned companynsel Shri Ashok Mathur for the appellants in Ravi Lamba and Other.
In this though specifically the virus of this Notification dated 21.1.1991 was number challenged but only order dated 28.6.1991 under it, but the Bench in view of the two companyflicting decisions of the same Court, one holding the Notification dated 21st January, 1991 valid and the other invalid and also as this issue went to the very root felt to resolve this which was effecting large number of State employees, hence referred it to the Full Bench.
The submission in this case was the same as in the case of Panjab Ministerial Qualified Assistant Association appellants.
Thereafter, under the instructions dated 30th August 1989, it was further clarified that persons who passed the Assistant Grade Examination within 5,6, and 7 chances should number be given the seniority till the decision of Civil Writ Petition No.
The grievance is that they should number have been reverted on account of the interim order as there was numbersuch direction.
392 of 1989 on account of interim order dated 16th March, 1989 passed in that case.
This led to filing of number of writ petitions challenging the aforesaid Notification dated 21st January, 1991.
This led into two clear sources of promotion one who became eligible after passing the examination, under Rule 4 and the other, the exemptees under the said Notification dated 21st January, 1991.
This numberification was issued under Rules 12 of the aforesaid Rule.
He relied on 1993 2 SCC 486 State of Orissa and Other etc.
The interim order dated 30th April, 1997 is quoted hereunder Special Leave granted.
Issue numberice in the stay application.
9828 of 1991, the same Court upheld the said numberification.
According to the appellants on 5th January, 1996.
So far question number f which is in issue in the appeal of Sukhdev Singh Sarpal CA No.
v. R. C. Rout and Other etc.
13310 of 1991, Ravi Shankar v. State, the High Court quashed this numberification holding it to be invalid, while in another civil Writ Petition No.
Hence violative of Rule 12 thus liable to be struck down.
On doubt being expressed the Government also issued a clarificatory letter dated 17th August, 1998.
of 1999 SLP C Nos.
3316 of 1997 raises the similar question as in the case of the aforesaid appeal of Ravi Lamba and other.
The appellants further seek direction through their writ petition that they be permitted to companytinue working as senior Assistants in pursuance to their promotion order which were admittedly prior to 21st January, 1991.
Pending appeal there will be stay of the operation of the impugned order.
In Civil Writ Petition No.
1 3 /11586 dated 21.8.1990 and orders dated 7.9.1990 issued vide Endst.
Dated the 17.11.1994 P.S. Ahuja Chandigarh Joint Secretary, Secretariat Administration.
11023 of 1991, Surinderjit Singh and other v. State of Panjab, same question was raised, whether persons who passed the examination prior to 2lst January, 1991 companyld be treated senior to the exemptees on 21st January, 1991.
1329 of 1999 all the appellants though passed the examination under the aforesaid Rules prior to 21st January, J991 within five chances but were promoted after 21st January, 1991 in view of the interim order dated 30th April, 1997 passed by this Court in special leave petition filed against the order of Full Banch dated 17th September, 1996 Beldev Raj supra .
In the same first round of litigation in another civil Writ Petition No.
So far in the appeal of Dhanna Singh and Other, C. A. No.l1661 of 1995 same question is raised with almost similar facts as in the case of Saroj Rani and Another and learned companynsel for the appellant Shri P. N, Puri adopts the same.
376 379 which relates to exemptees, who were promoted after the Full Bench decision of Surenderjit Singh supra on or after 21st January, 1995 but were reverted in view of the interim order passed by this Court.
Learned companynsel Shri P.N. Mishra in addition emphasised that the order dated 21st January, 1991, does number record the reasons.
This policy of promotion only to those who pass the examination under the aforesaid Rule companytinued for some time.
that respondent itself misinterpreted the said clarificatory letter dated 17th August, 1998, and passed reversion order of the appellant on 26th November, 1998.
They challenged the reversion order.
The case of the appellant is.
the Government issued a letter for implementation of the interim order dated 4th December, 1995 passed by this Court but by this it never ordered any reversion of all those employees who have already been promoted as senior Assistant.
Both the appellants in Saroj Rani case are those who have passed their examination on November 1990 but were promoted on 30.12.1992.
It is this reversion order which is under challenge in the writ petition of the appellants, However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition against which this appeal is preferred.
He submits where the rule obliges reasons to be recorded, it must be recorded.
of 1999 SLP C Nos.
Printing dispensed with.
This will number preclude promotion to those who have qualified by passing the required test.
In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the operation of the impugned order.
It is significant that finally State took decision vide Notification dated 3rd March, 1998 to abolish Assistant Grade Examination, thus companysequently issued a letter dated 9th March, 1998.
376 379 of 1999 appellants are exemptees who claim in view of the Full Bench Decision in Surenderjit Singh supra to be promoted first on the existing vacancy after 21st January, 1991 though were promoted after 21st January, 1995 but were reverted in view of the interim order dated 4th December, 1995 passed by this Court which is quoted hereunder Special leave granted.
In Tarlok Singh and Other C.A. No.
issued under Rule 12.
including validity of Notification dated 21.1.1991.
Thus the said directions were specifically made subject to any orders of a Court.
CA No.
But to put the matter straight the said order also records the following The above promotions reversions and changes in the dates of promotions are further subject any subsequent orders of the Honble Court.
The appellants were ordered to be reverted to give way to the eligible exemptees.
It is, However, clarified that neither the tendency of the appeal number the interim stay granted by us today, companye in the way of those who have qualified by passing a required test to be promoted when due.
In Sukhdev Singh Sarpal etc.
