Charanjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing CWP Nos. 18129 of 2008, 15761, 18573 and 24483 of 2012, as the legal issue involved is common. In CWP Nos. 18129 of 2008, 18573 and 24483 of 2012, the petitioners, who are working as Ticket Verifiers, are seeking a direction for their promotion to the post of Inspector in the ratio of 50:50 in terms of the opinion expressed by Legal Remembrancer, Punjab.

In CWP No. 15761 of 2012 filed by Sub Inspectors, the prayer is for quashing the order dated 1.8.2012, whereby Ticket Verifiers were promoted as Inspectors.

The issue is as to whether a Ticket Verifier is entitled to be promoted as Inspector and further in what ratio promotion to the post of Inspector is to be made from Sub Inspector, Conductor and Ticket Verifier. The posts in question are covered by Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service Class III Rules, 1977 (for short, ''the Rules'').

Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 18129 of 2008, 18573 and 24483 of 2012 submitted that the Rules provide for promotion to the post of Inspector from Sub Inspector with five years of service or Conductor with 10 years of service or Ticket Verifier with 15 years of service. As there was no quota as such provided in the Rules, opinion was sought from Legal Remembrancer, Punjab, who opined that in the absence of any quota prescribed in the Rules, when 100% posts of Inspector are to be filled by promotion, it would be appropriate that the same are filled in the ratio of 50:50 from category ''A'' and ''B'' respectively. In category ''A'' falls Sub-Inspectors and Conductors, whereas in category ''B'', Ticket Verifiers are there. The submission is that despite amendment in the Rules in the year 2000 providing for quota for Ticket Verifier for promotion to the post of Inspector, no promotions were made till 2012.

In CWP No. 15761 of 2012, the submission is that once in the Rules, there is no quota prescribed for promotion from different cadres, the State could not provide quota for promotion to Ticket Verifiers till such time the Rules are amended. The Conductors are having more length of service as compared to Ticket Verifiers, who were appointed much after them. They cannot be put at par with the Conductors and Sub Inspectors as length of service always has relevance for promotion.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the opinion given by Legal Remembrancer, Punjab providing for 50:50 posts in two feeder cadres was not accepted by the Government considering the number of posts in different feeder cadres. She submitted that in the cadre of Conductor, there are total 3,597 posts, out of which 478 posts were designated and placed as Sub Inspector in the higher pay scales. These are, in fact, senior most 478 Conductors, who are given higher pay scales and the designation of Sub Inspector. In the cadre of Inspector, the total posts are 377 and in the cadre of Ticket Verifier, the total posts are 54. As per the Rules, there are two feeder cadres - one is Sub Inspector with minimum 5 years of experience or Conductor with minimum 10 years of experience and second feeder cadre being Ticket Verifier with minimum 15 years of experience. Considering the number of posts in the feeder cadre, the opinion expressed by the Legal Remembrancer was not accepted as it provided for quota of 50:50 for both the feeder cadres, whereas there was vast variation in the number of posts available in the feeder cadres. In fact, when calculated, it was found that keeping in view the number of posts in both the feeder cadres, 98.5% were in the feeder cadre of Sub Inspector and Conductor, whereas only 1.5% were in the cadre of Ticket Verifier. Keeping that ratio in view, the promotions were effected in the year 2012 and subsequently. The matter is also pending with the Government for taking a decision in that light. She further submitted that the aforesaid ratio is the appropriate method for considering the cases of employees in the feeder cadres for promotion, otherwise there would have been heart burning as the number of posts of Inspector available for Ticket Verifier would be more than even the feeder cadre strength. All the posts of Conductor or Ticket Verifier are filled by way of direct recruitment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

Before considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant Rules. The same are extracted below:

APPENDIX B [See rule 8].

The number of posts in different cadres, as have been mentioned in the Rules are (i) Inspector - 377; (ii) Conductor - 3597 (out of these 478, posts were designated as Sub-Inspector in higher pay scale) and (iii) Ticket Verifier - 54.

The claim of Sub Inspectors is that in the absence of any quota provided in the Rules, all the promotions should be made from Sub Inspectors/Conductors, as they were appointed much prior to the Ticket Verifiers, as length of service is always relevant for consideration of a case for promotion, whereas the stand of the Ticket Verifiers is that the State should proceed to make promotions strictly in terms of the opinion expressed by Legal Remembrancer, Punjab, who opined that promotions be made in the ratio of 50:50, whereas the State without accepting the opinion expressed by the Legal Remembrancer had gone for making promotions in the ratio of the number of posts available in different feeder cadres.

As has been noticed above, there are total 3,597 posts in the cadre of Sub Inspector and Conductor and 54 posts in the cadre of Ticket Verifier, from which the promotions are to be made to 377 posts of Inspector. If total number of posts in the feeder cadre are considered, the same are 3597 + 54 = 3651. The percentage of posts in the feeder cadre of Sub Inspector/Conductor category will come out to 98.5%, whereas in Ticket Verifier category, the same will be 1.5%. The State is adopting this percentage while making promotions. I do not find any illegality being committed by the State in following this formula. If the opinion expressed by the Legal Remembrancer is taken on its face value, where in fact the issue regarding number of posts in two different feeder cadres has not even been noticed, the net result would be that the candidates in the category of Ticket Verifier will have more promotional posts in their quota as compared to the feeder cadre. In that event, out of total 377 posts of Inspector, 188.5 posts will go to the Ticket Verifiers, whereas their cadre strength is merely 54. This cannot be said to be the intention of the rule-making authority. The contention of the Ticket Verifiers in that regard is totally misconceived. Even if no specific quota has been provided for the purpose, the ratio as prescribed by the Government cannot be said to be against the spirit of the Rules or in any manner arbitrary. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in all the petitions either praying for making promotions to the posts of Inspector from two feeder cadres in the ratio of 50:50 or challenge made to the promotion of Ticket Verifiers as Inspectors on the ground that the Rules do not prescribe for any quota, hence, they are not entitled to promotion. However, as claimed by the Ticket Verifiers that despite amendment in the Rules in the year 2000 providing for quota for Ticket Verifier for promotion to the post of Inspector, no promotions were made for nearly 12 years and at present also, only four Ticket Verifiers have been promoted as Inspectors, it would be appropriate if while filling up the vacancies of Inspectors, the State Government keeps in view the number of posts coming to the share of Ticket Verifiers as it is quite small and further the promotional avenues come for them after rendering 15 years of service.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions are dismissed.