1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appointment to the posts shall be made by the following methods: (a) In the case of posts specified at serial Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7, column 2 of Appendix `A' by initial recruitment. (b) In the case of posts specified at serial Nos. 8, 10, 11, in column No. 2 of Appendix `A' by promotion, and (c) In the case of posts specified at serial Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 in column No. 2 of Appendix `A' at the discretion of the appointing authority by initial recruitment or by promotion." On 30th August, 1976, a Notification was issued whereby 50% of the posts of Civil Defence Officers were reserved for promotion and 50% for direct recruitments, but only grade I Officers were eligibly for promotion and did not benefit Grade II Officers. Another amendment was notified on 3rd August, 1977 whereby Grade 11 Officers were also made eligible for promotion to the post of Civil Defence Officer. Sixteen posts fell vacant and according to Rule 8, out of the 16 posts, 8 posts were to be filled by initial recruitment and 8 by promotion. Posts were advertised and six persons were initially recruited. On 5th March, 1978, two officials hold ing posts of Instructor Grade II were promoted as Civil Defence Officers. Vide notification dated 8th March, 1978 the appellant was appointed as Civil Defence Officer on officiating basis in their own pay and grade till regular appointments were made. After advertisement and competitive examination, six persons were appointed as Civil Defence Officers by initial recruitment on 7th August, 1978. The appellant has alleged that the rules of recruitment have been violated by filling 12 posts by direct recruit ment. The appellant who was promoted on officiating basis in his own pay and grade was reverted. The Writ Petition No. 4054/S‑78 filed by the appellant in this connection was dismissed.

2. The parties have been heard. According to the Department at the time of the final amendment of the Civil Defence Department Recruit ment Rules on 3Cth August, 1976, 11 posts were lying vacant. 14 posts fell to the quota of initial recruitment and promotion. In the case of initial recruitment six were recruited while against the promotion quota, 11 officials stood promoted. Thus only three vacancies were available for promotion and the remaining 8 were meant for initial recruit ment. These officers were promoted on.5th March, 1978 and a requisition was sent to the Public Service Commission for initial recruitment to 8 posts but these posts were filled temporarily by ad hoc arrangements including that of the appellant in an officiating capacity in his own pay and grade. According to the Government Pleader, other affected persons have not been made party, therefore, the appeal is not competent.

3. The appellant's contention is that promotions have not been made according to the prescribed quota. According to him the posts vacant at a particular time have to be divided between the two quotas, promotion and initial recruitment. This, view of the appellant, was strongly opposed by the respondents. In their view the two quotas have to be fixed on the basis of the overall strength of the posts and not the available vacant posts at a particular time. This view is borne out by the Punjab Civil Services (Ratio of Recruitment) Rules, 1973. Rule 3 of the Ratio of Recruitment Rules is as follows :‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in any set of Service/Recruitment Rules in their application to the Province of Punjab whereby certain portion or percentage of vacancies in any Service or post are to be filled in one manner and the remaining portion or percentage of such vacancies in another manner, the ratio of recruitment shall applied to the total number of posts in the cadre so as to maintain the prescribed percentage in the overall strength of the cadre not to the actual vacancies existing at a given time." The appellant has argued that these Rules have abated with the replacement of the Interim Constitution of 1972 by the Constitution of 1973. This is, however, not the correct legal position. The two quotas worked out by the department are according to the Ratio of Recruitment Rules, 1973. In view of this no exception can be made to the various officials appointed by initial recruitment and promotion. The appellant, by virtue of his seniority, is still not eligible for consideration for promotion. As a result of the view taken there is no force in the contentions of the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.