Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2433 (PNJ)

Sharda Devi v. Punjab Remote Sensing Centre

2006-07-03

S.S.NIJJAR, S.S.SARON

body2006
JUDGMENT S.S. NIJJAR, J. (ORAL) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book. 2. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 2 on the post of Steno Typist on a number of grounds. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent no. 3 has been appointed against a non-existing post as there is only one sanctioned post of Steno Typist in the Punjab Remote Sensing Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Centre”). The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure P-2) by which respondent no.3 has been invited to appear in the test to be conducted by the duly Constituted Committee for appointment on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Centre to promote the petitioner on the post of Stenographer on the principle of “seniority-cum-merit” and not by holding the test. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 having been appointed illegally against a non- existing post cannot be considered for appointment on the post of Stenographer. The post of Stenographer could only be filled by promotion of Steno-Typist. He relies on the rules known as “Service Conditions for Staff of Punjab Remote Sensing Centre”. According to the learned counsel, in view of Clause (i) of the definition contained in the Rules, the post of Stenographer could only be filled by an existing employee who is employed on the post under the Centre. Since respondent no. 3 is not holding any post under the Centre, he could not be considered for appointment by promotion. Rule 2 (iii), according to the learned counsel, makes it absolutely clear that appointments by promotion can only be made by promotion of existing personnel of the Centre. 4. The respondents have filed the written statements and controverted the plea taken by the petitioner. In the written statement filed by respondents no. 1 and 2-Centre, it has been stated that respondent no. 3 has been working as Steno-typist against the post of Stenographer which was vacated by one Mohan Lal on 9.2.1994 who was on deputation from the Punjab Agricultural University. Mr. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents-Centre contends that appointment of respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be either illegal or against a non-existing post. 3 has been working as Steno-typist against the post of Stenographer which was vacated by one Mohan Lal on 9.2.1994 who was on deputation from the Punjab Agricultural University. Mr. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents-Centre contends that appointment of respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be either illegal or against a non-existing post. The petitioner was working on the only sanctioned post of Stenotypist. Respondent no. 3 had also appeared in the interview for selection on the said post. However, the petitioner was selected and appointed and respondent no. 3 was kept at number one of the waiting list. On the repatriation of MohanLal to his parent department, respondent no. 3 was appointed as Steno-typist against the post of Stenographer. There was sufficient work for both the petitioner and respondent no. 3. In fact, respondent no. 3 has also been performing the additional duties of P.A. to the Director. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed as the petitioner would be entitled to compete in the selection test for appointment on the post of Stenographer. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents also argued on the basis of the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement that no writ petition would be maintainable against the Centre as it would not fall within the definition of “State” or “other authority” within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Sr. Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Anr. JT 2006(5) SC 186. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Mahajan vehemently argues that the writ petition would be maintainable against the Center. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virender Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 149. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to take a decision on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents as the writ petition can be disposed of on merits. Therefore, the question is left open to be decided in some other proceedings. We are of the considered that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to take a decision on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents as the writ petition can be disposed of on merits. Therefore, the question is left open to be decided in some other proceedings. We are of the considered that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. It cannot be said that respondent no. 3 has been working against a non-existing post. Admittedly, respondent no. 3 is working against the post of Stenographer. Therefore, it cannot be held that respondent no. 3 is working against a non-existing post. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner in that she has been merely asked to appear in the test to complete against any other eligible candidate for appointment on the post of Stenographer. Although Mr. Sumeet Mahajan has argued that promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority-cum- merit, but he has not been able to point out to any other rule which would show that the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Furthermore, no material has been brought to the police of this Court to show that the post of Steno-typist would be a feeding cadre post to the post of Stenographer. In our opinion, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. Dismissed.