Mahender Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment to serve as a Clerk in the Department of Prosecution in the year 1989 on the recommendation of the Subordinate Staff Selection Board, Haryana. He joined the post on 4.3.1991 in the office of District Attorney, Kaithal. A tentative gradation list of officials in Group-C service in the Prosecution Department was circulated on 1.1.2002, in which, the petitioner''s name figures at Serial No. 11 below Shalender Singh in the list titled: "70 temporary posts of Clerk in the scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-EB-80-4590" while private respondent No. 4 figured at Serial No. 29, below him. Aggrieved by placement in the gradation list, respondent No. 4 filed objections against it. The petitioner states that objections were filed.

On 1.6.2008, another tentative gradation list was circulated inviting objections from persons likely to be affected. The petitioner''s name now figured at Serial No. 16 while the name of respondent No. 4 figured at Serial No. 2 below Shalender Singh. These names were shown under the head: "88 temporary posts of Clerk in the scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-EB-80-4590".

Resultantly, the petitioner was shown junior not only below respondent No. 4 but other persons shown from seniority No. 3 to 15. The petitioner represented against the downgrading of his seniority without prior notice or offering opportunity of hearing before taking decision. The representation has been rejected by a non-speaking order. Meanwhile, the Director of Prosecution, Haryana has promoted two Clerks namely Shalender Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh as Head Clerks-cum-Accountants vide order dated 14.7.2010 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. This has brought the petitioner to this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.5.2010 and the consequential order dated 14.7.2010 promoting the alleged juniors of the petitioners to the next higher post.

On notice of motion having been issued, the State has filed a reply. It is stated therein as under:-

The respondent No. 4 Sh. Mahinder Singh was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Respondent No. 2 on the recommendations of Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana conveyed vide their letter No. SSSB (confd)-89/178 dated 6.11.1989 as D/ESM candidate. Appointment was issued to respondent No. 4 vide letter No. E/8/1-AP(3)-90/2783 dated 02.04.1990 and he joined his service as Clerk on 6.4.1990. The name of the petitioner was also recommended as General category candidate to the post of Clerk by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide their recommendation letter No. SSSB/(confd)-091/83 dated 25.1.1991. The true copy of the same is annexed as annexure-R1 for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court. His name appeared at Sr. No. 4 of the recommendation, against which the petitioner has been appointed as general category Clerk vide letter No. E/8/1-AP (5)-91/1777-80 dated 21.2.1991 and he joined his service on 4.3.1991 as such. It is clear from the above position as well as from the seniority lists as it stood on 01.06.08 i.e. (Annexure P/2) that the Respondent No. 4 was appointed earlier to the Petitioner and his name was also recommended by Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana prior to the petitioner and in no way he can treated as junior to the Petitioner.

However, it is pertinent to mention here that against the requisition for five posts of Clerks in General category and four posts of Clerks in Ex-servicemen category, the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide recommendation No. SSSB (confd)-89/178 dated 6.11.1989 recommended two general category and three Dependent/Ex-Servicemen (D/ESM) candidates and vide recommendation No. SSSB (confd)-89/179 dated 6.11.1989 recommended four candidates belonging to general category, two from Scheduled Caste (SC) and one from Dependent/Ex-Servicemen (D/ESM) category.

It is submitted that after sending the requisition as mentioned above, two candidates belonging to general category namely Sh. Gagan Dua s/o. late Sh. Sant Lal and Smt. Krishna Devi w/o late Sh. Ranbir Singh were offered appointment vide ends. No. E/8/1-AP(3)-90/2275 dated 16.3.1990 and E/8/1-AP (3)-90/4064-67 dated 22.5.1990 respectively under the Ex-gratia policy of the Govt. A communication to this effect was received from the Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana vide their letter No. 43/79/89-6GSII, dated 22.12.89 and No. 36/76/88-5GSII dated 28.12.89. Resultantly, only 3 posts from the General Category were available for making appointment from amongst the recommendations of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana. Accordingly S/Shri Jai Parkash and Sh. Shallender Singh recommended by Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide letter No. SSSB(confd)-89/178 dated 6.11.1989 and Sh. Ram Gopal whose name appeared at Sr. No. 1 of the recommendations of Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide letter No. SSSB (confd)-89/179 dated 6.11.1989 were appointed as general category Clerks and applications form of the remaining two candidates including the petitioner belonging to general category were returned back to the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide letter No. E-8/1-AP (3)-90/2774 dated 02.04.1990, as after issuance of appointment to above candidates, no vacancy was available with the respondent No. 2 in the general category. The respondent No. 4, Sh. Mahender Singh s/o. Sh. Daya Nand belonging to D/ESM category recommended by Subordinate Services Selection Board, vide letter No. 178, dated 6.11.89 at Sr. No. 3 was appointed in that specific category.

The petitioner and respondent No. 4 share a common name and that has led to confusion and consequential action being taken by sheer oversight. The fact remains that two separate recommendations were made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board with substantial time gap in between and, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner, unfortunately, did not disclose the entire case in the writ petition which necessitated the respondents to recount the true position and full facts in the written statement. In view of the stand of the State in its reply, there is hardly anything for this Court to do in the matter.

No ground is made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed.