Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Shanker, Steno-Typist And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Anr. on 17 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)101PLR163
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Vide this order three Writ Petition Nos. 13310, 14953 and 14954 of 1991 are for disposal. Facts are common and are taken from Writ Petition No. 13310 of 1991 which is otherwise complete as State has filed reply.
2. Ravi Shanker and other petitioners challenge instructions issued by the State under Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as Rules) exempting persons, who had put in 18 years of service from passing the examination under the Rules which is necessary for making persons eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistants. The petitioners are Clerks or Stenographers working in different departments of the State of Punjab. Examination under the aforesaid Rules was conducted on November 25, 1990 and the result was declared on January 14, 1991. All the petitioners passed the examination and, thus, became eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistants. Subsequenty on January 22, 1991, instructions under Rule 12 of the Rules were issued which) are contained in Annexure P1 as under :-
"In exercise of the powers conferred under rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination, Rules, 1984 the President of India is pleased to exempt from qualifying the Assistant Grade Test, all such persons who completed 18 years of regular service on as Clerk/Senior Clerks/Junior Assistants. These orders shall take immediate effect."
3. Some vacancies of Assistants were filled even before the examination aforesaid was conducted, temporarily till qualified candidates who had passed the test are available. Apprehending that instructions aforesaid were going to be implemented whereby the rights of the petitioners would be jeopardised for promotion, they have approached this Court.
4. Rule 12 of the Rules under which instructions Annexure P1 have been issued reads as under :-
"Where the Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary or expendient so to do; it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt any class or category of persons from the operation of these rules and such exemption shall operate prospectively."
5. A plain reading of the Rule aforesaid shows that the State could exempt persons or class of persons from passing the test for reasons to be recorded. What has been stated in Annexure P1, as reproduced above, is only that those persons who had served the State for 18 years stand exempted from passing the test. May be, by providing as above the State has made a classification of persons to whom the instructions are to be applied. However, no reasons are recorded in the instructions Annexure P1 as to why such persons should be exempted from passing the test. The instructions aforesaid are in contravention of the Rule framed and they are not in accordance therewith and, are, therefore, quashed. The result would be that the petitioners who have passed the qualifying test on January 14,1991 would be eligible for consideration for promotion to the posts of Assistants.
6. A preliminary objection was raised by the State counsel that four persons who were appoined as Assistants before the examination was conducted were not impleaded as parties and the Writ Petition should be dismissed as necessary parties were not impleaded. There is no force in this contention. The appointments of such persons were only upto the time when qualified candidates were to be appointed. They are not necessary parties to be impleaded in this Writ Petition.
7. For the reasons recorded above, these writ Petitions are allowed with the directions aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs.