JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
2. The petitioner claims to be senior to respondent No. 2 on the post of Senior Town Planner. The highest post in the department is the Chief Town Planner which is to be filled by promotion from the cadre of Senior Town Planner. The petitioner and respondent No. 2, both belongs to the cadre of Senior Town Planner, By order dated 15.1.2003 respondent No. 2 has been promoted on the post of Chief Town Planner. The petitioner claims that he being senior, was entitled to be promoted.
3. Mr. Tewari has vehemently argued that the conditions of service of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are governed by the Punjab Town Planning State Service (Class-I) Rules, 1972( hereinafter referred to as “the 1972 Rules”). Rule 8 of the 1972 Rules gives the method of recruitments to the service. The post of Chief Town Planner is to be filled by the promotion of the Senior Town Planners provided he has an experience of working as a Senior Town Planner for a minimum period three years. Rule 8(2) of the 1972 Rules provides that all promotions to the post in the service shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
4. A written statement has been filed. It is stated that the post of Chief Town Planner is to be filled under the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1994 Rules”), amended upto 31.12.2001. The post of Chief Town Planner, Punjab, is that of Head of Department and the State Government was conscious of the fact that there should be distinction in the criteria of selection of an incumbent to the post of Head of Department which carries heavy responsibilities. Therefore, conscious policy decision was taken by the government by letter No. 4/6/2000-3PPI/13720 dated 6.9.2001, that the cases pertaining to the promotion Head of Department would be decided strictly on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, and the officer who is graded as “Outstanding” would supersede the officer graded as “very good”. These conditions have been incorporated in the 1994 Rules which were amended vide Punjab Govt., Notification No. G.S.R.117/Const./Art.309/ Amd.(7)/2001, dated 18.12.2001. The vacancy in the present case became available on 1.1.2002. By that time, a decision had been taken on 6.9.2001 which has subsequently crystallized into and taken the shape of statutory rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Case of respondent No. 2 was considered alongwith the petitioner and the Departmental Promotion Committee prepared the panel as foliows:-
S.No.
Name of Senior Town
Planner
Sarv Shri
Total Marks
as per grading
Special
Remarks
Â
Â
Â
1.
R.K. Wadhavan
16
Due to retire on 28.2.02.
2.
R.P. Jindal
15
Due to retire on 31.10.2001.
3.
B.P. Kashyap
15
–
4.
S.K. Mahendru
18
–
5.
Som Pal (SC)
13
–
5. Respondent No. 2 being higher in merit, has been selected and appointed.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of Rule 20 of the 1994 Rules, shows that the rule has over riding effect. In this Rule it is stated that “the provisions of these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary in any rules for the time being in force for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service for appointment to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. This being the position, the respondents have rightly promoted respondent No. 2 as Chief Town Planner who is above the petitioner in merit.
8 In view of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Hemant Gupta, J.
