Satpal Sharma vs Punjab Agricultural University

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.9.1994 whereby post of Store Purchase Officer, was redesignated as Accounts Officers to frustrate his claim. Further, petitioner has prayed that he may be promoted to the post of Store Purchase Officer.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent-university on 11.1.1971 as Store Purchase Assistant (Technical). Petitioner joined as Store Supervisor on 1.4.1972. The post of Store Supervisor was later re-designated as Assistant Store Officer with effect from January, 1978. B.K. Khosla was selected as Store Purchase Officer vide Annexure P-2/A dated 7.12.1964 as a direct recruit and he retired on 31.10.1983. Petitioner as well as the other employees moved a representation to the respondents that the post of Store Purchase Officer be filled up by promotion as it was to fall vacant on 31.10.1983. However, the post was advertised by the respondent-university to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. Civil suit was filed by two employees of the store cadre challenging the advertisement Annexure P-6. However, the university advertised the post of Store Purchase Officer for making selection through direct recruitment. P.K. Bhalla, Accounts Officer was allowed to work as Assistant Store Purchase Officer with effect from 1.11.1983. The said person was from clerical cadre. Petitioner also applied for the post of Store Purchase Officer. However, neither any interviews were held nor any selection was made and P.K. Bhalla was allowed to continue as Store Purchase Officer. Mohinder Singh Grewal and Rawel Singh filed civil suit challenging the advertisement issued by the university and claimed that the post of Store Purchase Officer be filled by way of promotion. Suit was decreed in favour of the said plaintiffs vide Annexure P-11. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Store Purchase Officer vide orders dated 11.7.1986 and 2.6.1989 as stop gap arrangement. The said promotion was challenged by Mohinder Singh Grewal by way of CWP No. 15399 of 1989 and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the representation moved by the present petitioner be decided within three months. Thereafter, petitioner was regularly appointed as Assistant Store Purchase Officer vide order dated 29.5.1990. In order to frustrate the claim of the petitioner for promotion, respondent No. 2 re-designated the post of Store Purchase Officer as Accounts Officer vide Annexure P-21 dated 20.9.1994. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had been agitating his claim for promotion to the post of Store Purchase Officer since October 1983. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Store Purchase Officer on stop gap basis vide order dated 2.5.1996 and was promoted as Store Purchase Officer vide order dated 9.7.1997 during the pendency of the petition. Petitioner had retired from service in the year 2007.

Thus, in the present case, during the pendency of the petition, petitioner was promoted to the post of Store Purchase Officer. However, petitioner claims that he should be promoted to the said post with effect from 24.10.1983. The said prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion and during the pendency of the petition, he was promoted to the post of Store Purchase Officer in July 1997. Merely because petitioner had been approaching the respondent-university for his promotion as Store Purchase Officer in October 1983 would not entitle him to be promoted to the said post from the said date. It is not a case where any junior to the petitioner was promoted as Store Purchase Officer before him.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.