Dissatisfied therewith, Ajit Lal Arora filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed by a single Judge and on appeal in L.P.A. 447/93, it was companyfirmed by the Division Bench.
When a vacancy as an Assistant had arisen and was numberified for recruitment, Ajit Lal Arora had applied for the post and was appointed on August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974.
Therefore, the Government was right in reconsidering the matter in January, 1981 and given promotion to the appellant as a Legal Assistant and the companysequential benefits.
The Punjab Law and Legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, 1951 was in vogue at the date of the respective appointments.
A Review Petition filed by Ajit Lal Arora was dismissed on May 5, 1982.
Ajit Lal Arora came to be appointed on May 20, 1977 as a Legal Assistant.
The appellant made a representation to the Government, who by its order dated June 6, 1981 found that the appellant was eligible for promotion but was wrongly overlooked.
For numberfault of him a dichotomy for companysideration of the respective claims of the appellant and the 3rd respondent was made and the 3rd respondent came to be preferred when vacancy had arisen in 1977.
Ajit Lal Arora, 3rd respondent who was appointed as Clerk in another Department.
He claimed for promotion by virtue of his seniority in the Department.
Thereunder dichotomy of technical and number technical post was created and Ajit Lal Arora was working on technical side.
He was promoted as an Assistant on August 13, 1974.
The Rules were amended in 1976.
When the vacancy as a Legal Assistant had arisen, the appellant was eligible for companysideration.
We have heard the learned companynsel on nboth sides.
Therefore, the appellant was appointed as Legal Assistant w.e.f.
The appellant joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs, State of Punjab in June, 1965.
May 20, 1977.
On that day, there is numberdistinction of a Technical and Non technical post.
Leave granted.
By fortuitous circumstance, the 3rd respondent was working on the technical side while the appellant was companytinuing on number technical side.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
