Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner joined the Communication and Works Department, Government of Punjab as Sub-Engineer in Pay Scale No.11 on 19-12-1973. The posts of Sub-Engineers, it is stated, were upgraded to NPS-16 and with a view to fill the upgraded posts, Punjab (Buildings and Highways) Sub-Engineers Professional Examination Rules, 1977 were framed and promulgated. These rules provided that the posts of Sub-Engineers in NPS-16 shall be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness; no Sub-Engineer shall be eligible for being placed in NPS-16 unless he had at least ten years service in the department as a Sub--- Engineer in lower scale and had passed the examination prescribed by these rules. It was further provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 that in case any Sub---Engineer failed to get placed in the higher pay scale i.e. Against the upgraded post on account of not having passed the professional examination and his junior was placed in NPS-16, the former shall not, on passing the examination subsequently, have any claim for the post of NPS-16 in preference to his aforesaid junior and shall have to wait for selection against subsequent vacancies. The professional examination of the Sub- Engineers was to comprise written papers and viva voce examination. Rule 5 provided that the examination shall be held twice a year on the dates to be fixed by the competent authority.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he qualified the departmental professional examination, on completion of ten years of his service, and was awarded higher grade in BS-16 with effect from 28- 2-1984. His further contention is that he became eligible to be considered for promotion as Sub--- Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer in BS-17 on seniority-cum-fitness basis against a vacancy reserved for promotion under Punjab Communication and Works Department. (Engineering Posts, Qualification and Conditions for Recruitment) Rules, 1985 but in the absence of determination of inter se seniority of Sub-Engineers in BS-16, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer (BS-17) on current charge basis for a period of six months vide order dated 23-10-1991 (Annex. `B'). On the expiry of this period, petitioner was directed on 20-4-1992 to report to his parent circle but later on, his current charge appointment was extended for a period of six months with effect from 24-4- 1992. This was vide order dated 4-5-1992 (Annex. `E'). On expiry of his current charge appointment, he was directed to report to Chief Engineer, Highway, South Zone, Lahore for his further posting vide order dated 24-10-1992 (Annex `If). Petitioner challenged this order in this Constitutional petition. He also made a grievance that the department was not making appointments by promotion on regular basis because of non-settlement of inter se seniority amongst the members of the service in BS-16.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate-General. The learned Advocate-General defended the impugned order by relying upon sub-rule (2) of Rule 10-B of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 which reads as follows:-- "(2)An appointment made on current charge basis shall come to an end on appointment of a person on regular basis or on the expiry of six months whichever is earlier."
The learned Advocate-General submitted that the petitioner was allowed to hold the post of S.D.O.
On current charge basis which appointment could not last for more than six months. In his submission, the extensions granted to the petitioner were contrary to the aforementioned sub-rule (2). He also pointed out that the impugned order directing the petitioner to report to the Chief Engineer for his further posting was necessitated because of the appointments of selectees from Public Service Commission. This position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, petitioner could not be allowed to continue on current charge basis indefinitely.
4. As regards the petitioner's grievance that the inter se seniority of Sub---Engineers in BS-16 was not being finalised, suffice it to observe that the Section Officer made a statement in the connected Writ Petition No. 1189 of 1993 that the authorities had prepared a final seniority list of Sub-Engineers of Grade-16 which he placed on the record of that case and it was pointed out that the petitioners in that writ petition had challenged the same before the Service Tribunal. Petitioner in this case may also challenge the seniority list in question before the Service Tribunal, if he feels aggrieved thereof and if so advised. Needless to observe that the disputes relating to the seniority can only be raised before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution.
As regards the petitioner's grievance that he was eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer on regular basis but was not considered owing to the absence of the proper seniority list of Sub-Engineers in Grade-16, suffice it to observe that since the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, petitioner can agitate his claim before the relevant authorities after the dispute with respect to the seniority is finally decided by the Service Tribunal.
In view of the position aforestated, I find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed but with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.