Dharamvir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who was a Class-IV employee under the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, State of Haryana, has filed the instant writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Clerk with effect from the date his junior i.e. respondent No. 4, Ram Singh was promoted. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Bull Attendant with the respondent-Department on 27.5.1981. It has been pleaded that as per seniority list of Class- IV employees issued by the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department on 19.11.1998, the petitioner''s name appeared at Serial No. 89, whereas the name of private respondent No. 1 was at Serial No. 208. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to order dated 12.1.2004 whereby respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f. 29.6.1998. Learned counsel has further referred to the subsequent order dated 12.8.2008, Annexure P5, whereby in partial modification of the earlier office order dated 12.1.2004, respondent No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1993. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner who was a Matriculate on the date of his initial appointment on the post of Bull Attendant in the year 1981 and subsequently having even passed the 10+2 Examination was vested with a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk with effect from the date a person junior to him i.e. respondent No. 4 had been so promoted. Learned counsel has also adverted to the Haryana Veterinary Headquarters and Field (Group-C) Service Rules, 1999 to contend that in the case of Clerks, 20% quota by way of promotion from amongst Group-D employees has been earmarked. It has further been argued that the petitioner even possessed the requisite academic qualification and experience prescribed under the Rules for the post of Clerk i.e. Matric/Higher Secondary/10+2 (Vocational) and five years'' experience as a Group-D employee.

The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the State on the ground that the petitioner was working in a Field Institution as a Bull Attendant and the nature of duties of his post were different to that of the post of Clerk. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as he did not possess any basic knowledge of Clerical duties. Insofar as the promotion of respondent No. 4, Ram Singh is concerned, a stand has been taken that such promotion was effected only in pursuance to the directions of the Civil Court, Hisar.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to succeed.

The State Government, in its reply, has admitted to the fact that the petitioner was much senior to respondent No. 4, Ram Singh as per seniority list of Class-IV employees issued by the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department in the year 1998. It is further admitted that prior to the promulgation of the 1999 Service Rules, the policy of the State Government had been circulated vide letter dated 18.5.1984 whereby 20% of the posts of Clerks were to be filled up by promotion from amongst Class-IV employees who had passed Matriculation and possessed five years'' experience on such Class-IV post. It has further been admitted that the three labourers, namely, Balwant Singh son of Paras Ram, Krishan Kumar son of Ranjit Singh and Wazir Singh son of Chander Singh who were literate and though junior to even Ram Singh, respondent No. 4, had been promoted as Clerks. It was on such basis that the claim of respondent No. 4 had come to be accepted vide judgment dated 9.5.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar in a suit for declaration instituted by Ram Singh, respondent No. 4.

Equality in matters relating to public appointment is a right furnished in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the admitted facts of the present case, the respondent-Department has resorted to a policy of pick and choose insofar as the promotion to the post of Clerk from amongst Class-IV employees is concerned. The petitioner is not only senior to respondent No. 4 but, admittedly, is senior to even the other three aforementioned employees who had been promoted from the post of Labourer to that of Clerk. The distinction sought to be drawn on behalf of the State by asserting that the petitioner did not have any experience on the post of Clerk itself is wholly misconceived. In the written statement, the respondent-Department has referred to a policy of the State Government dated 18.5.1984 in terms of which 20% of the posts of Clerks were to be filled up by promotion from amongst Class-IV employees. As per the pleaded case of the State itself, the only two pre-requisites for claiming such promotion was for a Class-IV employee to have qualified the Matriculation Examination and possessing five years'' experience on such Class-IV post. It is not the case made out on behalf of the State that there was any requirement under the State policy dated 18.5.1984 for a Class-IV employee to be possessing experience on the post of Clerk itself. The petitioner being senior was clearly vested with a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted. Even the categoric averments contained in the petition to the effect that the petitioner possesses an unblemished record of service have gone unrebutted at the hands of the State. The action of the respondent-Department in denying to the petitioner the benefit of promotion to the post of Clerk with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted is held to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons recorded above, the instant writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be considered for promotion for the post of Clerk with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted i.e. 1.4.1993. The petitioner is also held entitled to all the consequential benefits except for the payment of actual arrears. The petitioner would, however, be granted the benefit of notional pay fixation with effect from the date of his promotion as Clerk i.e. 1.4.1993. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.