# HARBANS SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 496
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-08-03
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, K.S. Paripoornan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/harbans-singh-v-state-of-punjab-and-ors-13144
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Seroice Law:
Punjab Law and Legislative Depa1tment Provincial Seroice Class Ill
C Rules, 1951-Promotion--Dichotomy of Technical and non-technical
posts-Effect on-Directions to State Govemment.
D
E
F
The appellant joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and
Legislative Affairs, State of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an
Assistant on August 13, 1974. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Clerk
in another Department. When a vacancy of Assistant arose and was
notified, 3rd respondent had applied for the post and was appointed on
August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974. The Punjab Law
and Legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, 1951 was
in vogue at the date of the respective appointments. On that day, there was
no distinction of a Technical and non-technical post. The Rules were
amended in 1976, and dichotomy of technical and non- technical post was
created and the 3rd respondent was working on technical side. When the
vacancy of Legal Assistant arose, the appellant was eligible for consideration. He claimed his promotion by virtue of his seniority in the Department. 3rd respondent came to be appointed on May 20, 1977 as a Legal
Assistant.
The appellant made a representation to the Government, and it
found that the appellant was eligible for promotion but was wrongly
overlooked. Therefore, the appellant was appointed as Legal Assistant
G w.e.f. May 20, 1977. A direction was given that if any future vacancy arises,
the 3rd respondent would be accommodated. A Review Petition filed by the
3;:d respondent was dismissed, and he tiled a writ petition in the High
Court which was allowed by a single Judge and on appeal it was confirmed
by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal.
H
Allowing the appeal, this Court
496
HARBANS SINGH v. STATE
497
HELD : 1. At the time when the Punjab Law and Legislative DepartA
ment Provincial Service Class III Rules were in vogue, there was no
distinction between technical and non-technical Assistants. It could also
be seen that admittedly the appellant passed his LL.B (two years) course
in 1973 and 3rd year Course in 1974. By 1977, he had already had two years
experience on legal side. By fortuitous circumstance, the 3rd respondent
was working on the technical side while the appellant was continuing on
non-technical side. For no fault on his part a dichotomy for consideration
of the respective claims of the appellant and the 3rd respondent was made
and the 3rd respondent came to be preferred when vacancy had arisen in
1977. Therefore, the Government was right in reconsidering the matter in
January, 1981 and in giving promotion to the appellant as a Legal Assistant and the consequential benefits. [498-B; G-H; 499-A]
B
c
2. Since the appellant as well as the 3rd respondent have been further
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancers and both of them have been
continuing as such, justice and equity would need to mould the relief and
be worked out by giving appropriate direction to the Government. The D
Government is, therefore, directed to create a supernumerary post of Dy.
Legal Remembrancer and till the third respondent retires from service or
a super- numerary post of legal assistant must be created till date he was
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancer, as the case may be and that he
would continue in the post. As regards the appellant is concerned, since E
the Government itself had found him to be eligible and was appointed w.e.f.
May 20, 1977 i.e. the date on which the third respondent was promoted, it
must be deemed that the appellant was duly promoted w.e.f. that date and
he is entitled to all consequential benefits. [499-A-C]

## Text

A
HARBANS SINGH
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
AUGUST 3, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)
Seroice Law:
Punjab Law and Legislative Depa1tment Provincial Seroice Class Ill
C Rules, 1951-Promotion--Dichotomy of Technical and non-technical
posts-Effect on-Directions to State Govemment.
D
E
F
The appellant joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and
Legislative Affairs, State of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an
Assistant on August 13, 1974. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Clerk
in another Department. When a vacancy of Assistant arose and was
notified, 3rd respondent had applied for the post and was appointed on
August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974. The Punjab Law
and Legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, 1951 was
in vogue at the date of the respective appointments. On that day, there was
no distinction of a Technical and non-technical post. The Rules were
amended in 1976, and dichotomy of technical and non- technical post was
created and the 3rd respondent was working on technical side. When the
vacancy of Legal Assistant arose, the appellant was eligible for consideration. He claimed his promotion by virtue of his seniority in the Department. 3rd respondent came to be appointed on May 20, 1977 as a Legal
Assistant.
The appellant made a representation to the Government, and it
found that the appellant was eligible for promotion but was wrongly
overlooked. Therefore, the appellant was appointed as Legal Assistant
G w.e.f. May 20, 1977. A direction was given that if any future vacancy arises,
the 3rd respondent would be accommodated. A Review Petition filed by the
3;:d respondent was dismissed, and he tiled a writ petition in the High
Court which was allowed by a single Judge and on appeal it was confirmed
by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal.
H
Allowing the appeal, this Court
496
HARBANS SINGH v. STATE
497
HELD : 1. At the time when the Punjab Law and Legislative DepartA
ment Provincial Service Class III Rules were in vogue, there was no
distinction between technical and non-technical Assistants. It could also
be seen that admittedly the appellant passed his LL.B (two years) course
in 1973 and 3rd year Course in 1974. By 1977, he had already had two years
experience on legal side. By fortuitous circumstance, the 3rd respondent
was working on the technical side while the appellant was continuing on
non-technical side. For no fault on his part a dichotomy for consideration
of the respective claims of the appellant and the 3rd respondent was made
and the 3rd respondent came to be preferred when vacancy had arisen in
1977. Therefore, the Government was right in reconsidering the matter in
January, 1981 and in giving promotion to the appellant as a Legal Assistant and the consequential benefits. [498-B; G-H; 499-A]
B
c
2. Since the appellant as well as the 3rd respondent have been further
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancers and both of them have been
continuing as such, justice and equity would need to mould the relief and
be worked out by giving appropriate direction to the Government. The D
Government is, therefore, directed to create a supernumerary post of Dy.
Legal Remembrancer and till the third respondent retires from service or
a super- numerary post of legal assistant must be created till date he was
promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancer, as the case may be and that he
would continue in the post. As regards the appellant is concerned, since E
the Government itself had found him to be eligible and was appointed w.e.f.
May 20, 1977 i.e. the date on which the third respondent was promoted, it
must be deemed that the appellant was duly promoted w.e.f. that date and
he is entitled to all consequential benefits. [499-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7412 of F
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.93 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 447of1993.
Ujjagar Singh, Ms Naresh Bakshi and Davender for the Appellants. G
Sumant Batra and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
H
A
B
c
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The appellant
joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs, State
of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an Assistant on August 13,
1974. Ajit Lal Arora, 3rd respondent who was appointed as Clerk in
another Department. When a vacancy as an Assistant had arisen and was
notified for recruitment, Ajit Lal Arora had applied for the post and was
appointed on August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974. The
Punjab Law and legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, .
1951 was in vogue at the date of the respective appointment. On that day1 ·
there is no distinction of a Technical and non-technical post. The Rules
were amended in 1976. Thereunder dichotomy of technical and non-technical post was created and Ajit Lal Arora was working on technical side.
When the vacancy as a Legal Assistant had arisen, the appellant was
eligible for consideration. He claimed for promotion by virtue of his
seniority in the Department. Ajit Lal Arora came to be appointed on May
20, 1977 as a Legal Assistant. The appellant made a representation to the
D
Government, who by its order dated June 6, 1981 found that the appellan~
was eligible for promotion but was wrongly overlooked. Therefore, the
appellant was appointed as Legal Assistant w.e.f. May 20, 1977. A direction
was given that if any future vacancy arises, Ajit Lal Arora would therein
be accommodated. A Review Petition filed by Ajit Lal Arora was dismissed
E
on May 5, 1982. Dissatisfied therewith, Ajit Lal Arora filed a writ petition
in the High Court which was allowed by a singe judge and on appeal in
L.P.A. 447/93, it was confirmed by the Division Bench. Thus, this appeal
by special leave. .
The crucial question is whether the appellant is entitled to be conF
sidered for promotion as on May 20, 1977, the date on which Ajit Lal Arora
came to be appointed by promotion as Legal Assistant. It could be seen
that at the time when the Rules were in vogue, there was no distinction
between technical and non-technical Assistant. It could also be seen that
admittedly the appellant passed his LL.B. (two years) course in November,
1973 and 3rd year Course in 1974. By 1977, he had already had two years
G experience as on legal side. By fortuitous circumstance, the 3rd respondent
was working on the technical side while the appellant was continuing on
non-technical side. For no fault of him a dichotomy for consideration of
the respective claims of the appellant and the 3rd respondent was made
and the 3rd respondent came to be preferred when vacancy had arisen in
H 1977. Therefore, the Government was right in reconsidering the matter in
HARBANS SINGH v. STATE
499
January, 1981 and given promotion to the appellant as a Legal Assistant A
and the consequential benefits. We are informed that the appellant as well
as Ajit Lal Arora have been further promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancers and both of them have been continuing as such. Under those circumstance, justice and equity would need to mould the relief and be
worked out by giving appropriate direction to the Government. The
Government is, therefore, directed to create a supernumerary post of Dy.
Legal Remembrancer and till Mr. Ajit Lal Arora retires from service or a
supernumerary post of legal assistant must be created till date of AL.
Arora was promoted as Dy. Legal Remembrancer, as the case may be and
B
that he would continue in the post. As regards the appellant is concerned,
since the Government itself had found him to be eligible and was appointed C
w.e.f. May 20, 1977 i.e. the date on which Ajit Lal Arora was promoted, it
must be deemed that the appellant was duly promoted w.e.f. that date and
he is entitled to all consequential benefits.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
D
G.N.
Appeal allowed.