That representation was referred by the Government to Shri Sewa Singh, retired District and Sessions Judge, who had made the particular remarks.
He was permitted to cross the first efficiency bar under an order of the State Government dated June 14, 1966 and the second efficiency bar on July 20, 1971.
The appellants Writ Petition was allowed partly by a learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated August 19, 1974 whereby the order dated July 27, 1971 of the State Government granting seniority to two junior officers over the appellant in the selection grade was quashed.
It was held in appeal that the requirement of Resolution No.
484 of 1974 against the decision of the learned Single Judge which was disposed of by the High Court on November 19, 1976.
3315 of 1973 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the promotion of respondent to the selection grade, the refusal of the Chief Secretary to issue an integrity certificate to him and his number inclusion in the Select List of the Indian Administrative Service.
The High Court replied that it was number its practice to call for companyments of District and Sessions Judges on the representation of an officer against whom adverse remarks were made.
1.1 as regards the production of the integrity certificate was in the nature of a mere executive instruction, that it went beyond the scope of the statutory regulations, that the provision requiring the production of the integrity certificate was unguided and was likely to lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and that therefore, Resolution No.
The learned Judge directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the appellant along with that of three other officers regarding the grant of selection grade with effect from June 25, 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 76 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No.
On March 14, 1972, the appellant was also promoted to the selection grade with effect from January 15, 1972.
In the year 1966, as a result of the reorganisation of the erst while State of Punjab, the appellant and respondents 8 to 16 were allocated to the State of Punjab.
As the High Court did number express its view, the Government asked the appellant to submit a detailed representation along with documentary evidence in order to show that the adverse entry was made mala fide as alleged by him.
By an order dated July 3, 1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on July 23, the Government promoted respondents 8 to 12 to the selection grade of the Punjab Civil Service cadre.
The appellant submitted his representation again on December 19, 1971, as desired by the Government.
After a detailed examination of that representation, it was decided by the Government that since the companyments of the Reporting Officer of the High Court on the representation made by the appellant were number available, which was necessary for the proper disposal of the representation, a suitable numbere may be placed on the appellants character roll alongwith the companyfidential report for the year 1966 67.
He made a representation to the Government against the orders promoting res pondents to the selection grade prior to him but it was rejected by an order dated June 20, 1973.
The Letters Patent Appeal was accordingly dismissed by the High Court, against which the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The Committee held its meeting at Chandigarh on May 11, 1973 after which it prepared a list under Regulation 5 selecting respondent 9 for being brought on the select list for the purpose of promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
1.1 was ultra vires of Regulations 4 and 5.
A Committee companysisting of respondents 2 to 7 was companystituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations 1955, for selecting persons from the Punjab Civil Service cadre for the purpose of bringing them on the select list of the Indian Administrative Service.
It would appear that the appellants name was number put on the select list since respondent 2, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, had refused to give an integrity certificate to him.
The companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of Punjab by Shri Phuman Singh, Under Secretary in the services department, shows that after the adverse remarks were companymunicated to the appellant, he submitted a representation requesting that the remarks be expunged.
Shri Sewa Singh desired that the reference which was made to him by the Government should be routed through the High Court.
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal No.
Respondent 15 was similarly promoted on December 19, 1970, respondent 16 on January 1, 1971 and respondents 13 and 14 on July 27, 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court was once again requested by the Government that the Chief Justice and the Judges may companymunicate their views to the Government on the representation made by the appellant.
The Government then made a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana requesting it to obtain the companyments of Shri Sewa Singh.
That entry was companymunicated to the appellant whereupon, he made a representation against it but that has still number been disposed of, for one reason or another.
503 of 1978.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellant, Gurdial Singh Fijji, was selected for the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch in 1953 and was appointed as an Executive Magistrate on June 8, 1954.
N. Lekhi and Girish Chandra for Respondent No.
The appellant worked in various capacities after 1966 67, earning good reports all along.
Appellant made a representation against his number inclusion in the select list and that representation having been rejected, he filed a Writ Petition No.
S. K. Mehta, J. S. Chawla, N. Puri and P. Balakrishnan for the Appellant Bshamber Lal for State and Hardev Singh for the RR 1 4 and 6.
Respondents 8 to 15 are also members of the same Service, namely, the P.C.S., but they were selected and appointed to that Service after the appellant.
They are all governed, in the matter of companyditions of their service, by the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch Rules 1930, as amended from time to time by the companypetent authority.
In the gradation list circulated by the Government from time to time, respondents 8 to 15 were shown as junior to the appellant.
The appellant was companyfirmed in the cadre on May 8, 1958 while respondents 8 to 15 were companyfirmed on diverse dates thereafter.
In 1966 67 an adverse entry was made in the companyfidential record of the appellant while he was working under one Shri Sewa Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
484/74.
