Kheema Devi vs State Of H.P. And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

"a) Quash the impugned orders contained in Annexure A-6 and A-7 (to the extent of promotion of respondent No. 2) being arbitrary, malafide and illegal;

b) Direct the respondent department to promote the applicant on regular basis from the year 2001 with all the consequential benefits and arrears of salary with interest thereon @ 18% pa;

c) Direct respondent department to reinstate the applicant on the post of BDO, if reverted during the pendency of this OA with all the consequential benefits from the date of illegal reversion;"

This writ petition was originally filed before learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal but after the abolition of the Tribunal, the same stands transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under:-

The case of the petitioner is that she stood appointed as a Gram Sevika in the respondent-Department on 02.01.1975 and was promoted to the post of LSEO on 04.12.1982 on regular basis. She has been an outstanding sports person and had brought laurels to the State. In terms of the final seniority list of the LSEOs of the Rural Department as on 01.01.1999, name of the petitioner figured at serial number 14 whereas the name of the private respondent figured at serial number 20. The petitioner belonged to Schedule Caste category whereas the private respondent hails from Scheduled Tribe category. Whereas the petitioner was inducted in the category of LSEO on 04.12.1982 by way of promotion, respondent No. 2 was appointed in the said category on 05.09.1988 and thus was much junior to the petitioner. A post of Block Development Officer was lying vacant from the year 2001. Department failed to convene regular DPC to fill up the post in issue and resorted to stop gap arrangement whereby the petitioner as well as private respondent were promoted as Block Development Officers on stop gap basis with a clear cut stipulation that said arrangement would continue for a period of six months or till regular process was undertaken, whichever was earlier. This was not done. Thereafter again, vide notification dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure A-2), the petitioner was promoted as Block Development Officer on stop gap arrangement for a period of six months or till the post was filled up on regular basis, whichever was earlier, whereas the private respondent was promoted as such vide notification dated 25.09.2002 in accordance with their positions in the seniority. It was further the case of the petitioner that she learned from reliable sources that a DPC was convened by the Department in a very "stealth manner" and private respondent stood considered for regularization by bypassing the seniority of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the benefits stood "showered" upon the private respondent because she stood posted in the staff of the respondent-department in the Headquarters and Deputy Director and Joint Director of the Rural Development were the members of the DPC, who conveniently ignored the Rules and Regulations just to give undue benefit to the private respondent who was then on study leave and could not have been considered for promotion. A Legal Notice was issued by the petitioner dated 12.09.2006 (Annexure A-6), yet vide notification dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure A-7), private respondent stood promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to the post of Block Development Officer on regular basis with immediate effect by ignoring the petitioner. It is in this background that the petition stood filed by the petitioner praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove. According to the petitioner, promotion of the private respondent was completely illegal and unconstitutional as the same stood made de hors the Rules and Regulations as well as by ignoring the seniority of the petitioner.

Respondent No. 1 filed its response to the petition disputing the claim of the petitioner. The stand of the department is that the DPC which stood impugned by way of this petition was convened in a proper manner by following all the Rules and Regulations and instructions of the Government and no illegality stood committed in convening said DPC. The DPC was chaired by the members of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Secretary as well as the Director (Rural Development) were other members of the DPC. As per Department, the petitioner had already availed the benefit of reservation at the time of promotion from the post of Gram Sevika/LVDC to the post of LSEO (Mukhya Sevika) and as per the instructions of the Personnel Department of the State Government, senior (General) candidates were to be considered before the petitioner by including them in the zone of consideration for the purpose of promotion to the post of Block Development Officer from the category of LSEOs. The petitioner being junior in the initial entry grade was not falling in the zone of consideration, and therefore, was not considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer. It was further the stand of the Department that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer/Block Development Officer (Women Programme), which besides a District Level post also happened to be a post in the pay scale of Block Development Officer and appointment of the petitioner on officiating basis as a Block Development Officer was just a stop gap arrangement.

Rejoinder to the reply has not been filed by the petitioner.

Record further demonstrates that on 26.12.2013, respondent No. 2 was present in the Court in person and she prayed that she be permitted to adopt the reply filed by respondent-State, which prayer of her was allowed by the Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings of the case.

The basic grievance of the petitioner is against the promotion order which stood issued by the respondent-Department vide notification dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure A-7), vide which officers mentioned therein stood promoted against the post of Block Development Officer on regular basis. This includes the private respondent also. The contention of the petitioner as is borne out from the averments made in the petition is that the private respondent stood promoted against the post of Block Development Officer by ignoring the petitioner who was senior to her on account of undue favour which was showered upon the private respondent by Deputy Director and Joint Director of the Rural Department, who were members of the DPC which recommended the promotion of the private respondent against the post of Block Development Officer. There is also allegation of violation of Rules and Regulations by the DPC. However, a perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as documents annexed therewith demonstrate that except bald assertions made to this effect that there was violation of Rules and Regulations by the DPC and further certain officers showered undue favour upon the private respondent, there is no material on record to substantiate these allegations. Though malafide stands alleged against the then Deputy Director as well as Joint Director of the Rural Department, however, none of them stand impleaded as respondents in person, nor it has been substantiated in the petition as to in what manner, undue benefits stood conferred by the Officers concerned in the course of recommendation of the private respondent for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer. To the contrary, in the reply which has been filed by the respondent-Department, the categoric stand of the Department is that there was no violation of any Rules or Regulations by the DPC which considered the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer and as the petitioner, on the strength of her seniority, was not falling in the zone of consideration, her name was accordingly not considered for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer. The stand so taken by the respondent- Department has not been controverted by the petitioner by way of filing any rejoinder thereto.

I again reiterate that no Rules and Regulations stand appended by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition. Neither there is any averment contained in the petition as to which particular Rule or Regulation was violated by the DPC, and in what manner, the same was violated. In this background, as the petitioner has not been able to substantiate her allegations of purported bias exercised by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Department or the Officers in recommending the name of the private respondent for promotion against the post of Block Development Officer, this Court does not finds any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.