2001 (4) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor (Health Services), the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court mainly on the ground that the promote-respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications under the Service Rules applicable in the case. Relying upon the notification dated 9th April, 1989 which treated PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I, the high Court dismissed the writ petition observing that for the purpose of treating the PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I, there was no necessity of amending the rules. The High Court, however, held that Rule 9A of the Rules applicable in the case provided that for the post of Deputy Director, a person should be member of Class I atleast for period of 10 years. 3. It is not disputed that service conditions of the appellant and r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at at the relevant date when the respondent No. 3 was recommended for promotion, he had not completed 10 years of service within the meaning of Rule 9A read with Rule 2(2) of the PCMS Class I Rules. As the respondent No. 3 was not possessing the requisite qualifications on the relevant date, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services. 6. We do not agree with the High Court that even without amending the rules, the respondent-State could have declared the PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I. The notification dated 9th April, 1989 reads as: "In pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee for the removal of anomalies in the Revised Scales of pay of Punjab Civil Medical Services, the Pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a Government Order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution. 9. As respondent No. 3 was not eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, the Departmental Promotion Committee committed a mistake in recommending him. Consequent promotion of respondent No. 3 on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee being contrary to law is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties addressed argument regarding the claims and counter claims of the appellant and respondent No. 3 to the post of Deputy Director, Health Service to which the respondent No. 3 is stated to have become eligible by now....