Bhupinder Paul Chhabra vs Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Clerk with respondent-Maharishi Dayanand University w.e.f. 14/18.10.1976, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 5.4.1982, and redesignated as Assistant w.e.f. 21.3.1987 (P-3). It is conceded that the said posts formed part of the ministerial cadre of the non-teaching employees. It appears that the respondent-University created and advertised to be filled up by direct recruitment an ex cadre post of Divisional Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 plus special pay of Rs. 100/- in the Engineering Cell (in a higher pay scale than Assistant). Petitioner applied and was selected for the post of Divisional Assistant and appointed, vide appointment letter dated 16.4.1996 (P-5). It is apparent that this appointment was by direct recruitment and he was put on probation for one year. Subsequently on satisfactory completion of the probation period vide letter dated 17.6.1997 (P-6) his services were confirmed as Divisional Accountant w.e.f. 17.6.1997 and his lien on the post of Assistant was ordered to be no more existing in the University. Petitioner continued to occupy and enjoy the benefits of post of Divisional Accountant when he filed application dated 20.7.2009 (P-15), claiming restoration of his seniority as Assistant and consequent promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent/Superintendent with effect from the date his erstwhile juniors in the rank of Assistant had been promoted although without specifying any instance of any alleged junior. The said representation was declined vide order dated 21.12.2009 (P-80) and duly communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter moved another similar request vide his application dated 12.1.2011 which was also declined vide impugned letter dated 31.1.2011 (P-82). Yet another similar request was made vide application dated 13.2.2013 and the same was declined vide letter dated 10.4.2013 (P-87). Hence the present petition challenging Annexures P-80, P-82 and P-87.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his juniors (Assistants) were promoted to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendents/Superintendents and Assistant Registrars vide different orders from P-75 to P-79 during the period from 2008 to 2013. It is also sought to be argued that in case of one Prem Kumar Sharma and S.N. Sharma, they were permitted to revert back to the ministerial cadre of Assistant and granted retrospective promotions w.e.f. the date their juniors were promoted. Hence he states that petitioner is entitled to a fair treatment and promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted.

After hearing the learned counsel at length and perusing the paperbook minutely, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is totally devoid of any merit.

It is conceded that the petitioner had voluntarily chosen to apply and got selected and appointed to the post of Divisional Accountant after his due selection w.e.f. 16.4.1996 (P-5). It is also not disputed that subsequently on satisfactory completion of the probation period his services were confirmed as Divisional Accountant w.e.f. 17.6.1997 vide letter dated 17.6.1997 (P-6) wherein inter alia it was specifically provided that his lien on the post of Assistant stood extinguished. In service jurisprudence it is well settled that a person cannot retain lien on two posts. Thus, on being confirmed on the post of Divisional Accountant the petitioner could not legally retain his lien on the post of Assistant. This being the factual position and in law, the petitioner could not claim any further promotion on the basis of his erstwhile seniority as Assistant, after his confirmation as Divisional Accountant. It is not disputed that the posts of Deputy Superintendent/Superintendent/Assistant Registrar are not in the line of promotion from the post of Divisional Accountant. The cases of Prem Kumar Sharma and S.N. Sharma are clearly distinguishable, as they continued to have their lien on the posts of Assistant while being deputed to work on other posts. It also cannot be disputed that for lack of any promotional avenue from the post of Divisional Accountant the Government has provided for grant of ACP Scale in lieu of the same. Apart from the same the dispute being raised by the petitioner also suffers from delay and laches. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.