Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 9 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh Parmar v. State Of Punjab

2003-01-07

HEMANT GUPTA, S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper book. 2. The petitioner challenges the promotion of respondent No.4 on the ground that she is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Director (Biology). According to the petitioner, at present there are seven Divisions i.e. Divisions of Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Ballistics, Toxicology, Serology and Documents. Each Department is headed by an Assistant Director. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no inter-changeability between the seven departments. Therefore, the post of Assistant Director (Biology) could only be filled by a person having M.Sc. Ist or IInd Class in Zoology, Botany, Bio-chemistry. Forensic Science or equivalent with seven years experience in analytical methods. This post could also be filled by promotion by Scientific Officer with five years experience in Biology/Serology Division. Since the Department has not framed any, statutory service rules, the Draft Service Rules are being treated as executive instructions. Prior to the promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Assistant Director (Biology), all posts of Assistant Directors had been filled on the basis of the speciality in which the officers are working. According to the learned counsel, there is no common seniority of Scientific Officers working in different Sections of the Laboratory. This, according to the learned counsel, has been the consistent stand taken by the respondent-department. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.4 has been working in Document Department, and therefore, she does not have the necessary experience in Biology/Serology Division. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 in the written statement have clearly stated that the posts of Assistant Officer are interchangeable. The departmental promotion Committee met on 7.6.2000. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered. He was, however, not recommended for promotion. On the other hand, the record of respondent No.4 is stated to be far superior. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is a settled proposition of law that a government servant has only a right to be considered for promotion. No government servant can claim promotion as a matter of right. On the other hand, the record of respondent No.4 is stated to be far superior. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is a settled proposition of law that a government servant has only a right to be considered for promotion. No government servant can claim promotion as a matter of right. In the present case, the Departmental Promotion Committee has promoted respondent No.4 on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit The case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry) and Assistant Director (Biology) on the basis of inter-changeability in various Divisions of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab. If the plea of the petitioner was to be accepted, he could not have been considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry). Furthermore, it is to be noticed that even the earlier inter-se seniority of the four Assistant Directors which was finalised in the year 1980, was prepared by the Pumab Public Service Commission. Although each Division has a separate identity, but all the Divisions are .inter-dependent and complementary to each other, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab that quite frequently, a single exhibit has to be examined in different Divisions to reach any final conclusion. The work in various Divisions is distributed for the sake of administrative convenience. Therefore, we do not find substance in the submission made by Mr. Chatrath that there is no inter seseniority amongst the Scientific Officers. The claim of the petitioner having been considered alongwith respondent No.4, there would be no infringement of Articles 14/16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.