MOHAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 10-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHAN SINGH ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 10, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Punjab Ovil Secretariat (State Service Class-III) Rules 1963: Rule 8. 
C 
Advocate-General's Office-Assistant-Promotion to Superintendent 
Grade-I-Challenge on the ground that promotion was not against reserved 
vacancy-Held not justified on facts-Rule 8 held applicable. 
The appellant, an Assistant in the office of the Advocate-General, 
Punjab, was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I. Respondents 3 and 4 
D filed a writ petition and successfully challenged his promotion before a 
Single Judge of the High Court. The appeal preferred by the appellant was 
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
In appeals to this Court preferred by the appellant, it was contended 
E for the respondents that (i) the post against which the appellant was 
promoted was not reserved, it being the fifth post, and therefore he was 
not entitled to that post; (ii) promotion cannot be given from the post of 
Assistant to the post of Superintendent Grade-I when intermediary post 
of Superintendent Grade-II was available. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not right in allowing the writ petition 
filed by respondents 3 and 4. Record clearly indicates that the first vacancy 
occurred on 3.6.70. On second occasion, namely, 17.7.1975, a second post 
of Superintendent Grade-I was created and a person was appointed to that 
G post. It cannot be contended that the same cannot be considered as second 
vacancy. When the second post was created on 17.7.1975, though the 
incumbent was promoted along with creation of the post, it is clear that a 
vacancy had arisen. Thus considered, the Advocate General was right in 
his stand taken that the vacancy at hand was the 6th vacancy reserved for 
H member of the Schedule Castes as per the roster. [267-F, 266-B, CJ 
264 
.J 
i 
' 
~ 
~ 
J. 
MOHANSINGHv. STATEOFPB. 
265 
2. The contention that double jump cannot be given from the post of A 
Assistant to the post of Superintendent Grade-I when intermediary post 
of Superintendent Grade-II is available is really not acceptable. Rule 8 of 
the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1963 clearly 
indicates that a Deputy Superintendent with a minimum experience of one 
year in that post or an experience of 10 years as an Assistant is eligible B 
for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. It is true that Rule 
8 is inapplicable, as admitted by the Government but Rule 8 permitted the 
promotion in question. When a practice has grown to accept aforesaid 
Rules and when Rule 8 is being applied to the Secretariat service, there is 
no justification to deny the same benefit to the persons in allied services 
though the rules are nor per se applied, unless discernible differentia C 
touching the nature of the service is shown to which effect there is nothing 
before this Court. (266-D, E, 267-B, C, DJ 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 
1995 etc. 
D 
From the Judgment and OrC:er dated 26.9.94 of the Punjab High 
Court in LP.A.No. 796 of 1994. 
Arun Jaitley, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Ayesha Khatri, Ranbir Yadav, 
G.K. Bansal, Ashwani Kumar Chopra and P.N. Puri for the appearing 
parties. 
E 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
Appellant, Moha'! Singh, was promoted as an Assistant on 20.10.1973 F 
and was confirmed with effect from 13.10.1980. When vacancy in the post 
of Superintendent Grade-I arose on 27.11.1989 on promotion of one Gur-
dev Singh as Assistant Registrar, the Advocate General, Punjab promoted 
him as Superintendent Grade-I. Calling that promotion in question, 
respondents Tarlok Singh and Deena Nath Singla filed CWP No. 80/90 in G 
the High Court which was allowed by the learned Single judge and LP A 
No. 796/94 filed by appellant Mohan Singh was dismissed by a Division 
Bench by order dated 26.11.1994. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
The only question is whether the appellant is entitled for promotion 
from the post of Assistant to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Learned H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
counsel for the respondents contended that the post which fell vacant on 
the promotion of Gurdev Singh was not reserved, it being the fifth post 
and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to that post. We find no force 
in the contention. The chart at page 16 of the Paper Book (pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.