' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---All the three petitions captioned above are being disposed of by this single judgment as they are directed against a common order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30-10-1993 dismissing the appeals of all the three petitioners giving rise to common questions of law and facts.
2. Facts which are not in dispute are that the three petitioners as also the respondents joined service in the Irrigation Department as Junior Clerks on different dates. Petitioners had joined service earlier than the respondents and were, therefore, senior to them as junior clerks.
Respondents were, however, promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerks though on officiating basis in 1987 by ignoring the petitioners for the reason that they (the respondents) had cleared the prescribed departmental examination in that year while, the petitioners passed it much later. Respondents' promotion as S.D.Cs. Was later regularised with effect from the dates of the officiating promotion and they were also promoted as Accounts Clerks on regular basis with effect from 29-9-1990.
Petitioners passed the departmental examination in May, 1990 and were given promotion as S. D.
Cs. On regular basis on 29-9-1990 on which date, the respondents, as stated above, were further promoted as Accounts Clerks.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners made departmental representations which were rejected. They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal which were dismissed by one order impugned herein.
The Tribunal relying upon the relevant rules held that the posts of Sub-Divisional Clerks are to be filled by promotion from among members of the Service holding posts of Assistant Clerks with at least two years' experience who have passed the prescribed examination. It was further held by the learned Tribunal "Since the respondents had passed this examination in 1987 they had every right to be promoted as S.D.C. In preference to their seniors i,e, the appellants who did not pass the examination until 1990. Thereafter the respondents could not be stopped from further promotion as Accounts Clerk for which they had become eligible after putting in the required number of years of service as S.D.C. On this basis the respondents became eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks on Regular basis in 1990 whereas the appellants would become eligible, after having passed the Departmental Examination in 1990, for promotion as S.D.C. On regular basis on 1993".
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions. He contended that the petitioners being admittedly senior to the respondents as Junior Clerks, they could not be deprived of their seniority in the higher posts for the simple reason that they passed the departmental examination later than the respondents. We find no merit in this contention.
Petitioners were no doubt senior to the respondents as junior clerks but they passed the departmental examination prescribed for promotion as S.D.C. In 1990 which the respondents had cleared in 1987. The respondents were, therefore, rightly promoted as S.D.Cs. In 1987 in 'supersession of the petitioners who till then had not passed the requisite departmental examination and as such were not eligible for promotion as S.D.Cs. It has also been rightly held by the learned Tribunal that by the time, the petitioners passed the departmental examination in 1990 and were promoted as S.D.Cs., the respondents had become eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks as they had put in three years requisite service as S.D.Cs. Their promotion as Accounts Clerks on 29-9-1990 was not, therefore, open to any exception. Petitioners having been promoted as S.D.Cs. In 1990, they had to wait for another three years to be eligible for promotion as Accounts Clerks.
5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Service Tribunal does not call for any interference. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.