R.S. Das and Mrs. K. Goyal have preferred appeal before this Court by special leave.
However, Hardayal Singh was given the rank of Secretary simply to protect his special pay in the time scale of selection grade in the Indian Administrative Service.
SINGH, J These three Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment of Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by R.S. Das, Mrs. Goyal challenging the validity of the Select List pre pared for the year 1978, 1979 for promotion of members of Punjab State Civil Service Executive to the Indian Admin istrative Service, During the pendency of these appeals 17 writ petitions were filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh Nagpal and other members of the Punjab State Civil Service Executive challenging the validity of Select List prepared ,for the year 1979, 1980 and 1983.
Shri I.C. Puri who was posted as the Financial Com missioner Development was the Incharge of Development Department at the relevant time and as such he was appointed a member of the Selection Committee and admittedly he par ticipated in the deliberations of the Selection Committee which held its deliberation on November 30, 1979 for prepar ing the select list of 1979.
During the pendency of these Appeals Pritam Singh and 15 other officers of the State Civil Service challenged the validity of Select List prepared for the year 1979 and 1980 before this Court by means of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government allega tions regarding mala fide have been denied.
He was number Incharge of the Department as Secretary, instead he was working under over all companytrol of Financial Commissioner Development namely, Shri I.C. Puff.
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab it has been asserted that the Development Department was under the charge of the Financial Commissioner who was designated as Financial Commissioner Development and Shri Pun who was holding the rank of the Commissioner was the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department.
The rele vant numbere is available on record.
On behalf of the Appellants Petitioners it was strenu ously urged that Shri Puri was number the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department on 30.11.79.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.
it is asserted that Hardayal Singh was merely posted Special Secretary to the Govt.
This finds support from the numbere recorded by Hardayal Singh on 5.12.79 requesting the Chief Secretary for allocation of work between the Financial Commissioner Development and Special Secretary.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIIN Civil Appeal No.
Instead Hardayal Singh was Incharge of the Development Department as Special Secretary in the Department of Rural Development, Panchay ats, Agriculture and Forests.
The list so prepared did number include the names of aforesaid officers.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Govt.
Instead, the Financial Commissioner was made Incharge of the Development Department and he was designated as Financial Commissioner Develop ment .
I also respectfully agree with him on the companyclusions he has reached on the different companytentions urged before us in these cases.
It is thus evident that Hardayal Singh was working under the over all companytrol of Shri I.C. Puri who was the Financial Commissioner Develop ment and Secretary Incharge of Development Department.
4370 of 1983 etc.
On December 31, 1980 Selection Committee companystituted under Regulation 3 met to prepare fresh select list for the year 1980.
The challenge to the validity of the Select List for the year 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 are almost on similar grounds.
Ajit Singh Nagpal and other officers filed a similar petitions challenging the validity of Select List prepared for the year 1983.
Before the High Court S Shri R.S. Das, Baldev Kapoor and Smt.
He was neither holding the rank of Commissioner number he was the Secretary Incharge of the Development Department.
He filed another writ petition challenging the validity of that Select List also almost, on the same grounds, that writ petition was also dismissed by the Divi sion Bench on November 26, 1979.
