I MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AWAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION ZONE, BAHAWALPUR and 5 others
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding seniority and promotion within the Irrigation Department. The petitioners, who were senior to the respondents as Junior Clerks, challenged the respondents' earlier promotion to the posts of Sub-Divisional Clerks (S.D.C.) and subsequent promotion to Accounts Clerks. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, despite being senior in the lower cadre, could claim seniority over the respondents in higher posts when the respondents had qualified for promotion by passing the mandatory departmental examination earlier. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The Court held that promotion to the post of S.D.C. was contingent upon passing the prescribed departmental examination. Since the respondents passed the examination in 1987 while the petitioners did not pass until 1990, the respondents were rightfully promoted earlier. Consequently, the respondents became eligible for further promotion to Accounts Clerks in 1990, while the petitioners remained ineligible until they completed the requisite service as S.D.Cs. The principle established is that seniority in a lower cadre does not override the eligibility criteria, such as passing mandatory departmental examinations, for promotion to higher posts.
- Can a junior employee be promoted to a higher post before a senior employee if the junior employee has passed the mandatory departmental examination earlier?
- Does seniority in a lower cadre automatically entitle an employee to promotion over a junior who has satisfied the eligibility requirements for the higher post?
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---All the three petitions captioned above are being disposed of by this single judgment as they are directed against a common order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30-10-1993 dismissing the appeals of all the three petitioners giving rise to common questions of law and facts.
2. Facts which are not in dispute are that the three petitioners as also the respondents joined service in the Irrigation Department as Junior Clerks on different dates. Petitioners had joined service earlier than the respondents and were, therefore, senior to them as junior clerks.
Respondents were, however, promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerks though on officiating basis in 1987 by ignoring the petitioners for the reason that they (the respondents) had cleared the prescribed departmental examination in that year while, the petitioners passed it much later. Respondents' promotion as S.D.Cs. Was later regularised with effect from the dates of the officiating promotion and they were also promoted as Accounts Clerks on regular basis with effect from 29-9-1990.
Petitioners passed the departmental examination in May, 1990 and were given promotion as S. D.
Cs. On regular basis on 29-9-1990 on which date, the respondents, as stated above, were further promoted as Accounts Clerks.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners made departmental representations which were rejected. They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal which were dismissed by one order impugned herein.
The Tribunal relying upon the relevant rules held that the posts of Sub-Divisional Clerks are to be filled by promotion from among members of the Service holding posts of Assistant Clerks with at least two years' experience who have passed the prescribed examination. It was further held by the learned Tribunal "Since the respondents had passed this examination in 1987 they had every right to be promoted as S.D.C. In preference to their seniors i,e, the appellants who did not pass the examination until 1990. Thereafter the respondents could not be stopped from further promotion as Accounts Clerk for which they had become eligible after putting in the required number of years of service as S.D.C. On this basis the respondents became eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks on Regular basis in 1990 whereas the appellants would become eligible, after having passed the Departmental Examination in 1990, for promotion as S.D.C. On regular basis on 1993".
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions. He contended that the petitioners being admittedly senior to the respondents as Junior Clerks, they could not be deprived of their seniority in the higher posts for the simple reason that they passed the departmental examination later than the respondents. We find no merit in this contention.
Petitioners were no doubt senior to the respondents as junior clerks but they passed the departmental examination prescribed for promotion as S.D.C. In 1990 which the respondents had cleared in 1987. The respondents were, therefore, rightly promoted as S.D.Cs. In 1987 in 'supersession of the petitioners who till then had not passed the requisite departmental examination and as such were not eligible for promotion as S.D.Cs. It has also been rightly held by the learned Tribunal that by the time, the petitioners passed the departmental examination in 1990 and were promoted as S.D.Cs., the respondents had become eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks as they had put in three years requisite service as S.D.Cs. Their promotion as Accounts Clerks on 29-9-1990 was not, therefore, open to any exception. Petitioners having been promoted as S.D.Cs. In 1990, they had to wait for another three years to be eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks.
5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Service Tribunal does not call for any interference. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.