High CourtsDivision Bench

Dandu Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 22 October 2010 · Citation: (2010) 10 SHI CK 0326

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · V.K. Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP (T) No. 6406 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 613 words

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

That the promotion and seniority order, dated 28.5.1988 of respondents No. 3 & 4 attached vide Annexure A-1 bearing No. Udyan-Kha-(2)2/88-I be declared unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and be quashed and applicant be directed to be placed at his original seniority as per Annexure A-6.

2.

In reply, in para 6(d) it is stated as follows:

(d) In reply to this para, it is submitted that the respondents No. 3 & 4 were appointed as Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) on 26.12.73 and 18.12.73 respectively and the applicant was appointed as Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) on 2.3.1975 which indicates that applicant was junior to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the cadre and as per the seniority list as stood on 31.3.1987 shows the name of applicant at Sr. No. 6 and the names of respondents No. 3 & 4 at Sr. No. 4 & 5 respectively. The requisite qualification for the post of Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) at the time of appointment of the applicant and respondent were as under as per the prevailing Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by the Government vide notification No. 29-1/72 Hort. (Sectt.) dated 6.8.73, the essential qualification M.A. in Economics or Agriculture Economics or equivalent or Degree in Horticulture or Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject or equivalent.

The next promotional avenue to the post of Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) was available as Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist and as such the post of Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) was the feeder category for the post Assistant Post Havest Physiologist on promotion basis. However, at the time of promotion of the applicant on 25.6.88 from the post of Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) to the post of Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist in recruitment and promotion rules notified dated 8.2.88 were as under:

M. Sc. Horticulture with Plant Physiology/Bio-chemistry as Major Subject.

Or

B.S.C. Horticulture/B. Sc. Agriculture with Plant Physiology/Bio-chemistry as an elective subject with three years experience in post of Harvest Management of fruits. The applicant was B. Sc. Agriculture (Horticulture) and as such the applicant was promoted on 25.6.88 as Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist. But respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were not fulfilling the requisite qualifications as per the recruitment and promotion Rules which were in force at the time, as such the respondents No. 3 & 4 were not promoted to the post of Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist alongwith the applicant. IN the light of which the respondent No. 3 represented to the Government for getting their promotion. However, the respondent No. 3 was promoted as Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist on ad hoc basis by the Government vide notification No. Udyan Kha(2)5/88, dated 21.1.89 and since then respondent No. 3 was working as Assistant Post Harvest Physiologist/Asstt. Marketing Officer on adhoc basis till the date of his regular promotion order notified vide notification No. Udyan Kha (2)2/88-1, dated 28.5.88 by granting him the promotion w.e.f. 28.5.98 by allowing one time relaxation in the recruitment and promotion Rules notified on 8.2.88. Relaxation was allowed vide notification No. Udyan-Kha(2)5/88 dated 25.2.91, copy of which is attached as Annexure R-1.

3.

In case the petitioner has still any dispute with regard to the factual position, as stated in the above, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent and appropriate action will be taken, with notice to the petitioner, within four months on receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

4.

The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.