The petitioner was appointed Assistant Legal Officer in the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called P. R. T.B.), on 18-10-1976, and on 29-4-1978 he was absorbed as an Assistant Enquiry Officer. It appears that in 1977 after directions of the' Government of the Punjab, made under rules 18 of the Road Transport Board Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called Rules), the P. R. T. B. Was required to determine whether the exist--ing strength of employees was surplus to its requirement.
In consequence it appears that on 30-3-1978 at a meeting of the Board of the P. R. T. B. It was decided that incumbents of posts surplus to the requirement of the Board, be absorbed in other posts m the service of the P. R. T. B. And where this was not possible, the surplus employees be laid of.
2. It appears that by order dated 30th of March, 1980 the posts of Assistant Enquiry Officers in the P.
R. T. B. Were abolished with effect from 15-4-1980. The petitioner who was serving as Assistant Enquiry Officer, was on 8-4-1980 given an option to offer himself for absorption as Assistant Traffic Manager. It appears that this offer was accepted by the petitioner and he alongwith the other Assistant Enquiry Officers appeared before the authorised Committee of Selection. It appears further that the petitioner was not selected and on 15-4-1980, the Managing Director of the Punjab Road Transport Board informed the petitioner by means of the impugned order that consequent upon the abolition of posts of Assistant Enquiry Officers in the P. R. T. B. As a measure of economy, he has been rendered surplus, and accordingly he was served with one month's notice for termination of service. His services were to stand terminated on 15-5-1980, but on 14-5-1980 the present petition was instituted in which I called for a report from respondent No. 2 and directed that in the meantime the petitioner shall not be relieved from service.
3. Report called for has been received, according to which the post which the petitioner was holding i.e. Assistant Enquiry Officer, has been abolished as an economy measure and consequently the services of its in--cubment stand terminated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of rule 7 of the Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called the Rules), the officers and servants of the Board are classified into two categories. The first comprises the principal officers, described in rule 9 of the Rules, who in accordance with rule 7 can only be appointed with the prior approval of the Government, but the Board has been vested with the power to promote, suspend, fine, reduce in rank, remove or dismiss from service, etc. Such persons. All other Officers and servants of the Board comprising the second category are not to be appointed, promoted, suspended, etc. By such officers of the Board as are empowered by the Board in this behalf. It is admitted that the petitioner is not a principal officer of the Board and, therefore, he would fall in the second category and his appointment, removal, etc. Would be by such officer as is empowered by the Board and not by the Board itself. Learned counsel, however, drew attention to rule 13 of the Rules to contend that the Board is empowerd to frame regulations regarding service matters subject to the provision of rule 7 and contended that as a consequence the Board could not make rules contrary thereto. This may be so, but I fail to see in what manner such regulations cannot be made in relation to the appointment of officers of the second category without the approval of the Government. Learned counsel also argued that rule 7 afore-referred did not vest the Board with the power to create posts, and that such power and the power of abolition of posts vested in the Board only, under clause (i) of rule 12 of the Rules. He argued that powers under clause (i) of rule 12 could not be delegated by the Board to any Officer as they are by virtue of rule 12 specifically reserved for the Board, and therefore, the order of respondent No. 2 abolishing the posts of Assistant Enquiry Officer is without jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Saleem Khan, Legal Advisor of the Punjab Road Transport Board who was present with the record, drew attention to rule 14 of the Rules which authorizes the Board subject to such conditions and limitation as it may specify, to delegate such of its powers and duties as it may deem necessary for efficiently carrying on its administration, to the Managing Director. Mr. Saleem Khan urged that this included the power exercisable by the Board under clause (i) of rule 12 afore- referred, which as conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner empowered the Board to create posts. He pointed out that by virtue of Item No. 20 of the Delegation of Powers Rules, made under rule 14 of the Rules the Managing Director of the Punjab Road Transport Board had been delegated the power to create posts upto Grade-18 and consequently he is also entitled to abolish such posts.
6. I have carefully considered the provisions of rules 7, 12, 13 and 14. As conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner the Board may under clause (i) of rule 12 create posts as also abolish them.
Further as is evident from rule 14, the Board may delegate its powers to the Managing Director and this will obviously include powers under clause (i) of rule 12 afore-referred. By item No. 20 of the "Delegation of Power Rules" the Managing Director is delegated the power to create posts upto Grade 18. Consequently it follows that he can also in exercise of such powers abolish posts upto Grade-18. There is nothing in rule 7 or 13 prohibiting the delegation by the Board of its power to create or abolish posts to the Managing Director. In any case as noted earlier on 30-3-1978 the Board had directed the abolition of surplus posts.
7. Learned counsel next contended, that even if the Managing Director was validly delegated powers to create and abolish posts, he could not have directed the termination of the services of the petitioner, who according to learned counsel was not the junior most officer in the Traffic Cadre. In this context learned counsel drew attention to the "Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules, 1976" by virtue of which the Assistant Traffic Managers, Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Legal Officers have been placed in the Traffic Cadre. An examination of these Rules, copy of which is appended as Annexure 'E' with the petition, shows that for recruitment to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager a direct appointee must be a graduate, whereas a departmental promotee may even be an intermediate. Further, it appears that for the purposes of filling in the post of Assistant Traffic Managers, 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment, 30% by promotion from the Traffic Cadre and 20 % by promotion from Ex--Cadre, but in the event of Ex-Cadre personnel not being available their quota is to be equally divided among the direct recruits and the pro--mottees from the Traffic Cadre. According to the remarks column, the "seniority will be integrated". It was, therefore, argued that the seniority of the Assistant Traffic Managers, Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Law Officers was to be intergrated, and as such in the event of the abolition of any of such posts the junior most of such appointees had to be removed and the petitioner not being junior most could not have been removed. An examination of these rules shows that for the post of Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant Law officer, the minimum qualification is a law degree and they are to be directly recruited f. e. Not by promotion from the Traffic or other Cadres. However, an Assistant Enquiry Officer and an Assistant Law Officer are entitled to be promoted as Traffic Managers provided they have acquired two years experience as an Assistant Traffic Manager. After examining the promotion Rules, I regret my, inability to agree with the contention of learned counsel. A reference to the promotion Rules shows that the integration of seniority is only to be in relation to the Assistant Traffic Managers, appointed directly, or by promotion from the Traffic or other cadres. In this context it will be useful to reproduce the relevant remarks, (i) and (ii) of the promotion Rules :--
(i) Seniority will be integrated.
(ii) If suitable persons from ex-cadre are not available, their quota will go 50:50 to the other two."
It is clear that remark (ii) is only in relation to the Assistant Traffic Managers, for the Assistant Enquiry Officers and Assistant Legal Officers are to be recruited directly and not from the cadres and it is only the Assistant Traffic Managers who are to be recruited 50 % directly, 30% from the Traffic Cadre and 20--/a from other Cadres. Remark (ii) is in relation to non-availability of 20% personnel from the other Cadres. I follows, therefore, that earlier remark (i) as such is applicable only to Assistant Traffic Managers. Mr. Saleem Khan pointed out that in actual practice also to integrated seniority list of these three categories of post --and were maintained and appointments were also made specifically to the posts of Assistant Traffic Manager, Assistant Enquiry Officer and Assistant legal Officer. This much is also borne out by the absorption offer conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 on 8-4-1980, afore-referred and accepted by the petitioner by his letter to respondent No. 2 on10-4-1980, whereafter the petitioner also appeared before the Selection Board for absorption as an Assistant Traffic Manager.
8. No other point was raised.
9. In the result this petition is rejected in limine.