It was, however, number gazetted until April 29, 1956 owing to various objections and other matters which had to be decided by the Central Government.
On June 13, 1961 Respondents Nos.
16 were companyfirmed as Executive Engineers w.e.f.
various dates in the year 1961.
On April 22, 1964 Respondents Nos.
Respondent No.
3 to 9 with the exception of Respondent No.
On May 9, 1957, Pritam Singh submitted another memorial to the Governor of the State against his supersession for selection and promotion to the post of officiating Assistant Engineer Class I Junior but it was rejected.
3, R. D. Gupta was promoted as officiating Superintending Engineer.
14 to 17 and Respondent No.
However, on March 21, 1958 Respondents Nos.
Respondents Nos.
Respondent No.
In July, 1953 Respondents Nos.
But all these representations were rejected.
It is alleged that numberrepresentations were made by him against his supersession.
15 was companyfirmed by an order dated August 1, 1968 but with effect from December 17, 1963.
3 to 16 including Pritam Singh were companyfirmed by one companyposite Order as Assistant Engineer Class I Junior w.e.f.
20 was appointed as officiating Executive Engineer.
Respondents Nos.
This was done in companysultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission.
All the other Respondents were also promoted as officiating Executive Engineers before Pritam Singh was promoted as such on June 9, 1959.
In that Order the name of Pritam Singh was shown below the other Respondents.
On March 3, 1958 Respondent No.
various dates in the years 1962 and 1963.
On November 19, 1952, he was companyfirmed as an Assistant Engineer Class II.
On July 18, 1958, Pritam Singh made a representation which according to the appellant was given full companysideration and was even referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission for its opinion and advice.
The facts may be set out.
3 to 17 wherever the word Respondents is used hereafter it will refer to them and Respondent No.
3 to 17 and Respondent, No.
This companyld be so only if the date of his companyfirmation in Class II was to be taken into companysideration and number the date of his appointment as officiating Assistant Engineer Class I. Indeed owing to that seniority, Gupta was companyfirmed as Executive Engineer on June 13, 1961 w.e.f.
Gupta was promoted as officiating Assistant Engineer Class I on August 13, 1953, Virdi on August 10, 1953 and Malik on August 9, 1953.
On February 28, 1949, he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer Class II.
They were companyfirmed as Executive Engineers on June 13, 1961 with effect from 7th February, 1958 and September 18, 1960.
September 1, 1956.
Pritam Singh and Respondent No.
On March 11, 1966, Respondent No.
4 T. S. Virdi was also companyfirmed on the same date as well as Respondent No.
3 4, R. D. Gupta and T. S. Virdi were appointed as officiating Executive Engineers on 14 10 1955 and 5 11 1955 respectively.
January 1, 1966.
17 was companyfirmed in that post by an order dated 13 1 1960 with effect from 1 9 1956.
Pritam Singh took numbersteps by making any effective representation whatsoever or by filing any petition in the High Court to challenge the companyfirmation of those respondents who were companyfirmed by orders made on the various dates from 1961 to 1964, the last order being of April, 22, 1964.
The order of rejection of that representation was companymunicated to Pritam Singh on November 30, 1959.
16 and Pritam Singh himself were ordered to be companyfirmed w.e.f January 1, 1965.
After he was promoted and appointed as officiating Executive Engineer in June, 1959, he made another representation on 13 2 1959 which was also rejected.
6, K. S. Bharadwaj, who came on integration from the erstwhile PEPSU State, were selected and appointed as officiating Assistant Engineers Class I Junior .
On April 10, 1948 Respondent No.
On April 10, 1956, Pritam Singh was selected and appointed as an officiating Assistant Engineer Class I Junior .
This representation seems to have been rejected in November, 1959.
In other words, Malik was given the officiating appointment in Class I prior to both Virdi and Gupta and Virdi was appointed in an officiating capacity prior to Gupta.
February 7, 1958 whereas Virdi and Malik were companyfirmed w.e.f September 18, 1960 and November 4, 1960 respectively as Executive Engineers.
On March 23, 1966, Respondent No.
According to the present appellant, Pritam Singh was also companysidered for selection and promotion on all the three occasions but was superseded on the ground of unsuitability.
On June 1, 1963 Respondents Nos.
On May, 11, 1965, Respondent No.
12 to 14, 17 and 20 were companyfirmed as Executive Engineers w.e.f.
20 were similarly selected and appointed as officiating Assistant Engineers Class I Junior .
16 was also companyfirmed as Executive Engineer subsequent to them but w.e.f December 17, 1963.
3 to 5 were companyfirmed as Executive Engineers with effect from February 7, 1958, September 18, 1960 and November 4, 1960 respectively.
5 although both of them were companyfirmed w.e.f.
In May, 1966, Pritam Singh filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution out of which the appeal has arisen.
This representation was rejected by the Government in September, 1956.
20 joined as Assistant Engineers Class II and were admittedly companyfirmed after Pritam Singh was companyfirmed.
On July 15, 1956, he made a representation for the first time against his supersession and loss of seniority.
6 to 11 were companyfirmed as Executive Engineers w.e.f.
the 1st March, 1955.
21 Pritam Singh was appointed as an Apprentice Engineer Electricity Department .
One of the main points relates to the interpretation of Rule 7A of the Punjab Service of Engineers Electricity Branch Conditions of Service Rules, 1939 hereinafter called the Rules .
All these three Respondents were companyfirmed w.e.f.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave from a Judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court.
In September, 1953, Respondents Nos.
Thereafter, various Respondents out of Respondents Nos.
September 1, 1956 as Assistant Engineers Class I. Gupta was shown in the seniority list as senior to both Virdi and Malik.
10 to 13 and in March 1954 Respondents Nos.
Punjab Service Integration Rules 1957 were framed under Article 319 of the Constitution.
On November, 1956 the erstwhile States of Punjab and PEPSU were merged and the new State of Punjab was companystituted under the provisions of the States Re organisation Act 1956.
A joint seniority list was prepared and according to the appellant, it was circulated in the year 1958.
