Jai Singh vs Panjab University and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of order of promotion dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) vide which Respondent No. 4 stands promoted as General Foreman. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the Rules prescribed for qualifying the trade test.

It is the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as an Offset Machine Operator on 14.12.1988. He had all through been representing the Respondents to promote him to the post of General Foreman. As his claim was not being considered, he filed CWP No. 6874 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2001 directing the Respondent-Punjab University to finalize the Rules governing the promotion to the post of General Foreman within a period of six months. The Rules were finalized by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.9.2005. The Petitioner thereafter made a representation for promotion to the post of General Foreman. When his claim was again not considered, the Petitioner filed CWP No. 4167 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.3.2006 directing the Respondents to consider his legal notice served on them and decide it by passing a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected on 18.5.2006 on the ground that promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, subject to qualifying the trade test. No seniority list was circulated. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 30.1.2009 was promoted to the post of General Foreman which has been challenged in the present writ petition by asserting that he does not fulfill the required qualifications for the post of General Foreman.

Notice was issued and the Respondents were duly served. Respondent No. 4-Subhash Sharma, whose promotion is in question, preferred not to appear before this Court, despite service. A specific averment, with regard to Subhash Sharma being not qualified for the post on which he had been promoted, was made in Para 15 of the writ petition.

In response thereto, the University has not even stated that Respondent No. 4 fulfills the qualifications for promotion to the said post. The stand which has been taken by the Respondents primarily is that an advertisement dated 14.6.2008 was issued by the Respondent-University for filling up the post of General Foreman. Since the Petitioner did not apply for the said post, his claim for promotion was not considered. An additional ground has also been taken that the Petitioner has not passed the trade test which is a mandatory requirement for consideration for promotion to the post in question.

It would not be out of way to mention here that the Petitioner has asserted in his writ petition that no trade test was held by the University and, therefore, there was no question of the Petitioner to qualify the said test. To this averment, there is no response from the University. It is, thus, apparent that an effort has been made by the University to oust the Petitioner from the zone of consideration by putting in obstacles.

Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents have been heard and with their able assistance, I have gone through the records of the case.

It is apparent from the above that if it is a promotional post, there was no need for an advertisement as it was not mandated under the Rules governing the service. However, even if an advertisement had been issued with regard to the promotion, the same was required to be circulated amongst all the concerned employees who would be entitled to consideration for promotion. A ground can be taken here that since the Petitioner did not pass the trade test, therefore, he was not required to be informed but that cannot be a case in hand because no trade test was held by the University which would render any other employee eligible for promotion to the post. That apart, promotion of Respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained on the ground that he does not fulfill the qualifications for the post on which he has been promoted. A specific assertion made by the Petitioner with regard to the non-fulfillment of the qualification by Respondent No. 4, has neither been denied by the University in its reply filed nor has Respondent No. 4 come-forth to defend his promotion, despite service.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; promotion order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) of Respondent No. 4 to the post of General Foreman is hereby quashed.

Before parting with the order, a direction is issued to the Respondent-University to hold the trade test within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order inviting all the eligible persons who would be, on passing the said test, entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of General Foreman including the Petitioner.