ORDER
1. This judgment will dispose of C. W. 2260 of 1968, Lehna Singh and others v. Punjab State and others, and C. W. 1959 of 1969, Lehna Singh and others v. Punjab State and others, as they relate to the same subject-matter. In fact, the latter writ petition was filed after th rules were amended subsequent to the institution of the former writ petition.
2. Petitioners 1 to 4 are common to both the petitions. The 5th petitioner in C. W. 2260 of 1968, is Avtar Singh, who is not a party to C. W. 1959 of 1969. In that petition, Hari Mohan Lal and Parkash Chand Kakar are petitioners 5 and 6. The common respondents to the two petitions are the Punjab State, the Director, Public Relations, Punjab, Chandigarh, and Amar Kant. The other respondents to C. W. 2260 of 1968 are P. N. Parshar, Sulakhan Singh and Siri Ram Arsh, while the other respondents to C. W. 1959 to 1969 are Puran Chand , Sukhpal Vir Singh Hasrat, Babu Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Rajbir Singh. They are respondents 3 to 7 respectively and Amar Kant is respondent 8.
3. The facts are that petitioner 1 is a permanent Assistant in the scale of Rs. 116-8-180/10-250 and has been officiating as Head Assistant in the scale of Rs. 250-10-350 since November 2, 1966. The pay scale has now been revised and raised to Rs. 300-20-500. Petitioner 2 is a confirmed Article Writer in the grade of Rs. 150-10-300 and is now officiating as Copy Writer in the pay scale of Rs. 200-15-380-20-500. Petitioner 3 was appointed as an Article Writer through Punjab Public Service Commission on April 18, 1957 and has since been confirmed in that post. His present scale of pay is Rs. 200-450. Petitioner 4 is a confirmed Assistant and is officiating as Sales Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 200-10-280/15-430/20-450. Petitioner 5 in C. W. 2260 of 1968, is a confirmed Assistant in the scale of Rs. 116-250 and is at present officiating as Sales Manager in the pay scale of 150-10-250. Petitioner 5 in C. W. 1959 of 1969 is a confirmed clerk in the scale of Rs. 110-200 since December 1, 1952, and is at present officiating as an Assistant in the scale of Rs. 160-400, while petitioner 6 is a confirmed clerk and has been officiating as an Accountant in the scale of Rs. 160-400 since June 22, 1966. The post of an Accountant s interchangeable with that of an Assistant.
4. Amar Kant, who is a respondent in both the petitions, was recruited as Rural Publicity Supervisor on April 11, 1957, and was appointed as District Public Relation Officer on temporary basis on June 29, 1962, for a period not exceeding six months. He was however, continued in that post, and on August 20, 1966, he was appointed Public Relations officer in the Public Relations Department on regular basis by the President of India, in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission. At that time, the State of Punjab, was under President’s Rule. On October 10, 1968, when the State of Punjab was again under Presidents Rule, the President of India regularised the promotion and appointment of Amar Kant, Rural Publicity Supervisor, as Public Relations Officer in the Public Relations Department in the scale of Rs. 250-25-750, with effect from July 6, 1962 in relaxation with rule 9 (h) (i) of the Punjab Public Relations Department (Gazetted) Service Rule 1958 (hereinafter called the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules). He is since then continuing in that post. The order dated October 10, was issued by the President of India during the pendency of C. W. 2260 of 1968, and this order has been challenged in C. W. 1959 of 1969. The particulars of respondents 3 and 5 in C. W. 2260 of 1968 need not be stated because respondent 3 has since been reverted from the post of District Public Relations Officer and respondent 5 has been recruited as District Public Relations Officer by direct appointment, and therefore, the petitioners do not challenge his appointment. Respondent 6 in that petition, Siri Ram Arsh was recruited as Field Publicity Assistant on an ad hoc basis on November 16, 1965, and was promoted to the post of Public Relations Officer on an ad hoc and purely temporary basis with effect from May 28, 1968. The particulars of respondents 3 to 7 in C. W. 1959 of 1969 are as under :-
(1) Puran Chand, respondent 3, joined service as Rural Publicity Supervisor on June 24, 1959. He is only a Matriculate and was appointed on ad hoc basis but he continued in that post till he was temporarily appointed to the post of Field Publicity Assistant on September 1, 1965, in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450. He was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of District Public Relations Officer in August, 1968 in the scale of Rs. 250-750 which has now been revised to Rs. 350-900. The promotion was made on purely temporary basis for a period of six months or till the recommendation by the Punjab Public Service Commission to fill up the post on regular basis, whichever was earlier, in the interest of Government work. The approval of the Commission was obtained for his continuance beyond the period of six months with the result that he is continuing on temporary basis as District Public Relations Officer with the approval of the Public Service Commission.
(2) Shri Sukhpal Vir Singh Hasrat, respondent 4, was appointed as a Field Publicity Supervisor on October 10, 1960, and as a Field Publicity Assistant on September 1, 1965. He was later promoted as District Public Relations Officer in August 1968, along with Puran Chand respondent 3 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-750. His promotion was also made on purely temporary basis but he is continuing in the post with the approval of the Public Service Commission.
(3) Babu Singh, respondent 5, was appointed as Field Publicity Supervisor on October 28, 1957, and as a Field Publicity Assistant on September 1, 1965. He was appointed as District Public Relations Officer on September 2, 1968, without obtaining the approval of the Public Service Commission. The approval of the Public Service Commission has since been obtained and he is also continuing in the post of District Public Relations Officer.
(4) Jagmohan Singh, respondent 6, was appointed as a Field Publicity Supervisor on September 30, 1961 and as a Field Publicity Assistant on September 1, 1965. He was promoted as Public Relations Officer on March 12, 1969, against a vacant post on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. In the return it is stated that the Punjab Public Service Commission has been requested to accord necessary approval to his continuance beyond the period of six months.
(5) Rajbir Singh, respondent 7, was appointed as Field Publicity Supervisor on November 8, 1962, and as Field Publicity Assistant on September 1, 1965. He was promoted as a Public Relations Officer by order dated April 30, 1969, on ad hoc basis for a period of six months against a vacant post. The approval of the Public Service Commission has been sought with regard to his continuance beyond the period of six months.
5. The particulars of the respondents have been stated in order to emphasise that none of these respondents was eligible for promotion as Public Relation Officer under the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules. Rule 9(h) of these Rules provided for the method of recruitment to the posts of Public Relation Officer, District Public Relations Officers. Editors, and Radio and Press Liaison Officer as under :-
“(i) by selection from among Head Assistants, Assistant Public Relations Officer, Article Writers, Assistants, and Sales Manager, or
(ii) by transfer or deputation of a person already in the service of the Government of a State or of the Union; or
(iii) by direct appointment. ”
The Explanation to Rule 9 reads as under :-
“Superintendent, Head Assistants, Assistant Public Relations Officers, Article Writers, Sales Manager, Technical Advisers, and Statistical Assistants, occurring in this rule belong to Class III Non-Gazetted Service of the Public Relations Department. ”
From this explanation, it is clear that under clause (i) of Rule 9(h) the selection was to be made from among certain categories of persons included in Class III Non-Gazetted Service of the Public Relation Department and no outsiders were eligible for the promotion under the Rules. This Rule was amended by notification dated November 19, 1968, by the Punjab Public Relations Department (Gazetted) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1968, and Clause (h) of R. 9 was substituted by the following:-
“(h) in the case of Public Relations Officers, District Public Relations Officers, Editors and Radio and Press Liaison Officers:-
(i) by direct appointment; or
(ii) by promotion from amongst the Assistant Public Relations Officers; or
(iii) by transfer or deputation of a person already in the service of the Government of a State or of the Government of India, possessing qualifications prescribed for direct appointment.
Provided that forty percent of the vacancies shall be filled in by direct appointment. ”
This amendment thus made the Head Assistants, Article Writers, Assistants and Sales Managers ineligible for selection as Public Relations Officers or District Public Relations Officers, and the method of recruitment by promotion was only confined to the Assistant Public Relations Officers who also belonged to Class III Non-Gazetted Service like the other categories who were previously eligible for promotion as Public Relations Officers or District Public Relations Officers.
6. It is also necessary to refer to Punjab Public Relations Department (Class III) Non-Gazetted Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the Class III Non-Gazetted Service 1958 Rules), Rule 8 prescribed the qualifications for direct appointment to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer as a degree of a recognised University with experience of Government Service. Rule 9(d) provided for the method of recruitment in the case of Assistant Public Relations Officer as under :-
” (i) by selection from among the Assistants, provided they have three years experience; or
(ii) by transfer or deputation of a person already in the service of the Government of a State or of the Union; or
(iii) by direct appointment. ”
These Rules were also amended by notification dated November 19, 1968 and in Rule 8 the entry, with regard to the qualifications against Assistant Public Relations Officer, was substituted by the following:-
“(a) A Bachelors Degree in Science or Arts. Preference will be given to those with additional qualifications in Sociology Social Work and Journalism.
(b) An experience of three years in
(i) a Publicity Organisation, or
(ii) in a recognised organisation connected with social work, or
(iii) in the Public Relations Department as a Publicity Supervisor or Field Publicity Assistant or Information Assistant or as an Article Writer, or
(iv) in a Newspaper office connected with editing of news or writing of features etc. ”
Clause (d) of Rule 9 was substituted by the following :-
“(d) In the case of Assistant Public Relations Officer:-
(i) by direct appointment; or
(ii) by transfer or deputation of a person already in the service of the Government of the State or of the Government of India, possessing the necessary qualifications, prescribed for direct appointment; or
(iii) by promotion from amongst Copy Writers, and Article Writers; or
(iv) by selection from amongst those Assistants and Head Assistants of the Public Relations Department, Punjab, who have at least 8 years of service as Assistants, are Graduates, and are less than 40 years of age, or
(v) by selection from amongst those Field Publicity Assistants who are Matriculates and are below 50 years of age. ” It is specified that 60 % of the posts shall be filled in the manner provided in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) and 40 % in the mode provided in sub-clauses (iii) ,(iv) and (v). Appendix ‘A’ was also amended so as to increase the number of posts of Assistant Public Relations Officer to 29 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-15-350/20-450 with Efficiency Bar at Rs. 350/-. Previously in Appendix ‘A’ to the Class III Non-Gazetted Services 1958 Rules, the number of posts of Assistant Public Relations Officers was mentioned as one in the pay scale of Rs. 150-10-200/10-300 with Efficiency Bar at Rs. 200/-
7. The first point to be determined is whether th amendment of Rule 9 (h) (i) of the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules, by notification dated November 19, 1968, is valid. This matter has to be decided in reference to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which reads as under :-
“82. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State :
Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day, to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. ”
It is admitted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that no approval of the Central Government was obtained before the notification dated November 19, 1968, amending Rule 9(h) (i) was issued. It has, therefore to be seen whether this amendment has affected the conditions of service of the petitioners in any manner.
Under Rule 9(h) (i) of the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules, as it existed on the appointed day, i. e, November 1, 1966, the Public Relations Officers could be selected only amongst from head Assistants, Assistant Public Relation Officers, Article Writers, Assistants, and Sales Managers. By means of the amending notification, this selection has been confined only to Assistant Public Relations Officers, from which Head Assistants, Articles Writers, Assistants and Sales Managers have been debarred from being considered for selection as Public Relation Officers. Therefore, it has changed the conditions of service of these categories of officers to their disadvantage and as it is done without obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government the amended Rule 9(h) (i) is invalid. The first point to be determined is whether th amendment of Rule 9 (h) (i) of the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules, by notification dated November 19, 1968, is valid. This matter has to be decided in reference to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which reads as under :-
I find no substance in this argument. In the first place these categories of officers have been reduced to a lower rank than that of the Assistant Public Relations Officers by the amendment. Under the unamended rules, the Assistant Public Relations Officers were at par with Head Assistants, Article Writers, Assistants and Sales Managers. Secondly, the Copy Writers and Article Writers are eligible for promotion as Assistant Public Relations Officers, whatever their academic qualifications, whereas in the case of Assistants and Head Assistants it has been provided that they should have at least eight years of service as Assistant and should be graduates and note more than 40 years in age. The Sales Managers have been completely debarred from being selected either as Assistant Public Relations Officers or District Public Relations Officers or Public Relations Officers. The amendments are, therefore, clearly to their disadvantage. The petitioners have, therefore a genuine grievance that their conditions of service have been altered to their disadvantage without obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government.
8. It is then urged on behalf of the respondents that chances of promotion do not constitute the conditions of service. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in State of Mysore v. G. N. Purohit, 1967 Ser LR 753 (SC) wherein the following observations occur (para 10 of the report) :-
“It is then urged on behalf of the respondents, that by changing the system from District-wise to state-wise the respondents were hard hit and have became very junior. It appears from the figures supplied by the respondents that there were 665 Junior Health Inspectors in the old State of Mysore on November 1, 1956, while only 48 Junior Health Inspectors were allotted to the new State of Mysore after the Act. So long as the district-wise system continued these 48 persons would naturally have better chances of promotion in their districts but when the cadre was made State-wise, these 48 were likely to be down in the seniority list of 1963 actually shows. It is urged that this has affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to Section 115(7) of the Act, which lays down that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person allotted to the new State shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. It is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chances of promotion have been affected, their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to the State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass, AIR 1966 SC 1547. ”
This judgment is of no help to the respondents, for the reason that in that case the channel of promotion had not been obstructed. The only effect of changing the system from district-wise to State-wise was to postpone the chances of promotion of some members of the Service who became juniors in the State list as compared to their position in the district list. They continued to be eligible for promotion to the higher posts to which they were entitled before the change of the system. In the instant case, the channel of promotion to the higher post of District Public Relations Officer or Public Relations Officer has been completely blocked. The matter with regard to the right to promotion being a condition of service was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1968 (SC), Mohammed Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy decided on April 15, 1968. In that case, the point under consideration was whether a departmental examination could be prescribed for promotion to the next higher rank which was not there prior to the reorganisation of the States. The case was under sub-section (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which is in the same language as Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. Their Lordships observed:-
“Any rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his conditions of service and it appears to us, therefore, that unless there be approval of the Central Government in terms of the proviso to sub-section (7) of S. 115, a rule which lays down the passing of a certain departmental examinations as a condition for promotion to a person who was an allottee to the new State of Mysore would be in violation of sub-section (7) of S. 115.
On the same parity of reasoning, it can be said in the present case that the provision in the amended Non-Gazetted Service 1958 Rules to the effect that Article Writers, Copy Writers, Head Assistants, and Assistants have first to be selected as Assistant Public Relations Officers before being considered for selection as Public Relations Officers or District Public Relations Officer has changed the conditions of their services because prior to the amendment they were at par with the Assistant Public Relations Officer and along with them could be considered for promotion by selection for the posts of Public Relations Officers or District Public Relations Officers. The argument that the pay scale of Assistant Public Relations Officer has been raised from Rs. 150-10-300 to Rs. 200-15-350/20-450 has also no force because the pay scale of Public Relations Officer and District Public Relations Officer is Rs. 250-750 and prior to the amendment, the Head Assistants, Article Writers, Assistants, and Sales Managers, could be selected for these higher posts carrying higher scale of pay. The amendment of Rule 9 is, therefore invalid and has to be quashed but the amendments made in the Non-Gazetted Services Rules cannot be struck down on any ground except that the amendment in Rule 9(d) (iv) shall not apply to the Assistants who were in the service of the Department before November 1, 1966. To such Assistants, Rule 9(d) (i) of Non-Gazetted Service 1958 Rules shall apply.
The amendment in Rule 9(d) (iii) (iv) and (v) cannot be struck down on the ground that more categories of officers have been made eligible for being selected as Assistant Public Relations Officers. It is pointed out that under the unamended Rules, the selection could be made only amongst the Assistants having three years experience and now the selection has been extended to Copy Writers, Article Writers, Head Assistants, Assistants, and Field Publicity Assistants. The answer to this argument is that the number of posts of Assistant Public Relations Officer has been increased from 1 to 29 by amending Annexure ‘A’ to the said Rules and if more categories of officers have been added from amongst whom the selection can be made, the number of posts has also correspondingly been increased, so the rights of Assistants as on November 1, 1966, have not been affected by this amendment except to the extent indicated above.
9. I may also deal with an argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment of the Rules has worked to the disadvantage of the petitioners and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Head Assistants and Sales Managers were eligible for being selected as Public Relations Officer and District Public Relations Officer and thus all of them formed one class, but now, after the amendment, only Assistant Public Relations Officer, are eligible while others have been excluded. The result is that different treatment has been accorded to one constituent of that class leading to discrimination of the other constituents of that class. I do not find any force in this argument as it is open to the Government to change the classification from time to time and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution do not fetter that right.
10. In the light of the unamended and amender rules, it has now to be decided whether the appointments of the respondents, whose particulars have been given above, as District Public Relations Officer were valid and in order. For that purpose, I propose to deal with the case of each respondent and I start with Amar Kant, He was originally recruited as Rural Publicity Supervisor on April 11, 1957, in the scale of Rs. 250-400, which post was kept outside the scope of non-gazetted Service Rules or Gazetted Service Rules, 1958. No rules for recruitment as Rural Publicity Supervisors were ever framed, and therefore, the Government had the right to make appointments to these posts without fringing any rules. While serving as Rural Publicity Supervisor, he was appointed as District Public Relations Officer, Sangrur, on June 29, 1962, temporarily for a period not exceeding six months. It appears that a reference was made to the Punjab Public Service Commission for according approval to his appointment as District Public Relations Officer. The Public Services Commission accorded its approval on condition that the necessary relaxation in the relevant rules be made. To fulfill that condition, the notification dated October 10, 1968, was issued in relaxation of Rule 9(h) (i) did not mean anything and could not be utilised to promote a person to the post of Public Relations Officer who was not eligible under the said rule. Clause (i) of Rule 9(h) could be amended to include Rural Publicity Supervisors in the category of officers from amongst whom the selection could be made. The rule with regard to relaxation is Rule 15 in the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules, which reads as under :-
“!5. Powers to relax rules – Where the Government is satisfied that the operation of any one of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may by order dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. ”
As I read this rule, it can be applied only to the members of the service who are governed by these rules and in whose cases the operation of any rule causes undue hardship but this power of relaxation cannot be exercised in favour of a new entrant to the service as it cannot be said that any rule causes undue hardship to him. Secondly, no order has been produced before me to prove that the Government have passed any order to the effect that it was satisfied that the operation of Rule 9(h) (i) caused hardship to Amar Kant and it was, therefore necessary to relax the requirements of that rule and to what extent and subject to what conditions. The appointment and promotion of Amar Kant to the post of Public Relations Officer to begin with, was not in accordance with the rules and could not be regularised by relaxing one of the rules relating to recruitment. Even the approval of the Public Service Commission did not make invalid appointment valid. It can be said to be well settled by now that where rules of service exist, the Government has to make the appointments to that Service in accordance with those rules and not contrary to those rules. Where no rules exist, the Government has the right to make the appointments by executive decisions or instructions. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1967 Ser LR 906 = (AIR 1967 SC 1910) that –
“Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. ”
In All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association Delhi v. General Manager , Central Railways, AIR 1960 SC 384, their Lordships observed as under :-
“So multifarious are the activities of the State that employment of men for the purpose of these activities has by the very nature if things to be in different departments of the State and inside each department, in many different classes. For each such class there are separate rules fixing the number of personnel for each post, to which men in that class will be appointed, questions of seniority, pay of different posts, the manner in which promotion will be effected from lower grades of pay to higher grades, e. g. whether on the result of periodical examination or by seniority, or by selection or on some other basis and other cognate matters. Each such class can be reasonably considered to be separate and in many matters independent entity with its own rules of recruitment, pay and prospects and other conditions of service which may vary considerably between one class and another. A member joins a particular class on recruitment; he leaves the class on retirement or death or dismissal; discharge, resignation or other modes of termination of service, or by joining another class of employees whether by promotion thereto or direct recruitment thereto on passing the examination or by selection in some other mode. ”
From these observations, it follows that if there are rules for any class, that class must be governed by those rules, and the recruitment, promotions, seniority etc. , must be in accordance with those Rules. Recruitment cannot be made in violation of these rules. I am, therefore of the opinion that the appointment of Amar Kant as Public Relations Officer was invalid right from its inception and cannot be said to have been regularised by the order of the President of India dated October 10, 1968. However, it has to be determined whether the order of his appointment as Public Relations Officer should be quashed in these proceedings, in view of the time that has already expired. He was appointed as Public Relations Officer on June 29, 1962, in a temporary capacity and was continued in that post till his appointment was regularised after consultation with the Public Service Commission. The petitioners did not raise their little finger to challenge that appointment till they filed C. W. 2260 of 1968 on July 20, 1968, that is after more than six years. The petitioners have also not stated whether they were eligible for appointment as Public Relations Officer in June 1962, and if they were eligible, it has not been explained why they did not challenge the appointment of Amar Kant at that time. According to the qualifications prescribed in the rules for the post of Public Relations Officer this respondent is fully qualified to hold that post. In fact, the return of respondents 1 and 2 states that he is an efficient officer who has been doing very good work for the Department. The remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and as to be exercised on just and equitable grounds. In view of the laches on the part of the petitioners, I am not inclined to quash the appointment of Amar Kant as District Public Relations Officer/Public Relations Officer particularly because the quashing of that order after the lapse of more than eight years will cause a very great hardship to him and will also create complications for him and respondents 1 and 2.
11. I have already stated above that P. N. Prashar, respondent 3 in C. W. 2260 of 1968, has since been reverted because he did not appear before the Public Service Commission. The petitioners, therefore, do not seek any relief against him. The petitioners also seek no relief against Sulakhan Singh, respondent 5 in C. W. 2260 of 1968, since he has been appointed as District Public Relations Officer as a direct recruit.
12. Shri Ram Arsh, respondent 6 in C. W. 2260 of 1968, was originally recruited as Field Publicity Assistant on a purely ad hoc basis on November 16, 1965 in the pay scale of Rs. 250-450. He was placed on one year probation but this period could be extended by the competent authority in its discretion. The post was stated to be purely temporary and his appointment could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason or giving any notice to him or pay in lieu thereof. He was promoted to the post of Public Relations Officer on ad hoc and purely temporary basis by order dated May 8, 1968 by the Government. It is stated in the return that his appointment as Public Relations Officer was made to look after the Urdu monthly journal ‘Pasban’ for which he is the only qualified and suitable person available. Prior to his promotion also, he was assisting the editor of the journal ‘Pasban’ and that a requisition has since been sent to the Public Service Commission for recommending a suitable person to fill up this post through an open competition. Although the return was filed on November 1, 1968, containing these facts, no replication has been filed by the petitioners to controvert the allegations that he was the only qualified person to fill that post to which he was appointed on ad hoc and purely temporary basis. He has not been made a respondent in C. W. 1959 of 1969. In view of these facts, his appointment as Public Relations Officer on ad hoc and purely temporary basis , that is, till the Public Service Commission recommends a suitable person, cannot be quashed.
13. For the reasons given above, C. W. 2260 of 1968 is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
C. W. 1959 of 1969.
Now I proceed to consider the cases of respondents 3 to 7 in C. W. 1959 of 1969. They were originally appointed as Filed Publicity Supervisors and later on, with effect from September 1, 1965, they were all appointed as Field Publicity Assistants. Respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as District Public Relations Officer by order dated August 5, 1968, Babu Singh, respondent 5, was promoted as District Public Relations Officer by order dated August 27, 1968. Jagmohan Singh respondent 6, with effect from March 12, 1969 and Rajbir Singh, respondent 7, with effect from April 30, 1969. Their appointment orders show that the appointments were made by way of promotion against vacant posts. Originally, they were appointed for a period of six months without the approval of the Public Service Commission. The approval of the Public Service Commission was however, obtained with regard to respondents 3, 4 and 5 while the Public Service Commission has not accorded necessary approval to the continuance of respondents 6 and 7 beyond the period of six months. The appointments of all these respondents as District Public Relations Officer by way of promotion are against the Gazetted Service 1958 Rules and were challenged quite promptly by the petitioners, who were not considered for selection although they allege that they were eligible for the posts of District Public Relations Officer. Respondents 6 and 7 could be appointed as Assistant Public Relations Officer in view of the notification dated November 19, 1968, amending Class III Non-Gazetted Service Rules and not as District Public Relations Officer. The appointments and continuance in officer as District Public Relations Officer of respondents 3 to 7 are therefore, liable to be quashed.
14. For the reasons given above, C. W. 1959 of 1969 is accepted in respect of respondents 3 to 7, the orders of whose appointments as District Public Relations Officer are hereby quashed. The petitioner as against Amar Kant, is however, dismissed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners while making appointments as Public Relations Officer and District Public Relations Officer in accordance with the Rules and the observations made above. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
15. Order accordingly.