LexSAROJ RANI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAROJ RANI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. AUGUST 24, 1999 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] Service law-Promotion-Examination for-Clerks promoted to the post of Assistant on passing an examination-Clerks having put in 18 years A B of service exempted from taking examination- Exemptees filling almost all vacancies of Assistant-Dispute between exemptees and qualifiers of C examination-Held, exemption to a rule cannot efface the Rule itself-Vacancies decided to be filled in the ratio of 70 : 30 between the exemptees and the qualifiers-Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984-Rule 12. Service Law-Promotions-Examination for-Rule providing for exemption of any class or category from examination for reasons to be D recorded in writing-Held, does not confer unbridled power-Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984-Rule 12. Service law-Promotions-Examination for-Rule Providing for exemption of any class or category from examination for reasons to be E recorded in writing-Notification exempting a certain class did not contain reasons for such exemption-However Record of events and correspondence which led to such exemption showing reasons therefor-Held, notification is not invalid-Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rul~s, 1964-Rule 12. F Service law-Seniority-Inter se seniority between promotees- Promotees having cleared Departmental Examination for promotion-Rule protecting seniority of those who cleared the examination in five chances- Promotion to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit-Held, those who passed examination in five chances ~ould not be given any preference over those passing it in more than five chances-Punjab State Assistant Grade G Examination Rules, 1984-Rule I 0. The dispute in this appeal relates to the rival claims of clerks in various departments of the State of Punjab to promotion to the post of Assistant. Initially promotion to the post of Assistant (later on re-designated as Senior H 691 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. l S.C.R. A Assistant) from the post of clerk was made purely on the basis of seniority- cum-merit. In 1984, Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 were framed and under the said Rules, only those clerks who passed the examination prescribed under the Rules could be promoted to the post of Assistant. The promotions were to be made from amongst the qualifiers on B the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 was amended on S.12.1984 and seniority of even those clerks who cleared the Assistant Grade Examination in two chances was protected. On 16.9.1985, the Rules were again amended and seniority of those who passed the C Assistants Grade Examination in four chances was protected. On 18.10. 1986, number of chances were further enhanced to five. On the repeated representations of those who could not qualify the Assistant Grade Examination.in spite of their long services, by a notification . dated 21.1.1991, the Government exempted all clerks who completed 18 D years of service as a clerk from taking the Assistant Grade Examination for promotion to the post of Assistant. The notification was issued under Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 which provided.that if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, E exempt any class or category of persons from the operation of the Rules of 1984. The exemption was to operate prospectively. There arose a dispute between (a) those who had qualified for promotion after taking the Assistant Grade Examination (the qualifiers) and those who had been exempted from the examination under the notification dated 21.1.1991 F (the exemptees); and (b) those who had cleared the examination within five attempts and those who had cleared the examination in more than five attempts. Several Writ Petitions were filed by the aggrieved parties. On there being a conflict between two judgments of the High Court in G respect of validity of the notification dated 21.1.1991, the matter was referred to a Full Bench of the Court. The Full Bench in Surinder Jit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1994) 4 Vol. 98 SLR 702 upheld the validity of the notification dated 21.1.1991. It further held that the notification was to be prospective in operation and the exem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.