GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN And Other

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Six petitions for Leave to Appeal have been filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 28th of December, 1985 whereby the three appeals filed against the re-fixation of the seniority, were allowed.

2. The three appellants before the Service Tribunal were promoted to Grade-18 in the Executive Branch of the Punjab Province, out of turn, in recognition of an exceptional and meritorious service rendered by them, without considering the claim of others similarly placed in the service. The provisional seniority list circulated on 25-9-1982 contained for the first time, the following condition which aggrieved them:- "The officers granted out of turn promotions, over and above their seniors, have been assigned seniority along with their batch mates as decided by the Provincial Selection Board in their meeting held on 18-3-1986. The officers, whose batch mates have not yet become ripe for promotion, have been entered at the tail of the list provisionally and they shall continue to be relegated in seniority till their batch mates get promotion, when their names will be entered at their proper places."

3. The case of the appellants before the Service Tribunal was that their out of turn accelerated promotion, without then considering others similarly placed in the service amounted, for various reasons, to regular promotion and they are entitled to reckon their seniority from the date of their promotion and the impugned condition was illegal and unexceptionable.

4. The Service Tribunal by the impugned judgment upheld their claim holding that accelerated promotion 'are promotions in the prescribed manner.

5. It is contended that by holding that such a promotion where an individual is considered a class by himself and promoted without considering his comparative merit with others similarly placed, the express language of the Civil Servant Act and the rules concerning promotion have been violated.

6. For example, section 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act provides that the promotion to a post may be to a selection post or non-selection post. In the case of former, the selection is entirely on the basis of merit. In the case of the latter, the promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In either case, the person promoted has to compete with others and his case cannot be examined in isolation. Rule 8 sub-rule (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)

7. Rules, 1974 also provides that the appointment shall be made from amongst such persons possessing such qualifications and fulfilling such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. All this, according to the petitioners, clearly indicates that there is no scope for consideration of a case in isolation making of an individual a class by himself and not matching his comparative merit with others similarly placed in the group from which promotion has taken place.

8. We consider that the question of law raised in these petitions is of public importance and an authoritative pronouncement is called for. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. There is a request for suspension of the impugned order of the Tribunal. At present, we are not inclined to grant this request.