Ms . Chander Prabha vs The State of Haryana and others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature ofmandamus for grant of seniority and all consequentialbenefits with effect from 22.4. 1976 when she was eligiblefor promotion to the post of Public Relations Officer(Research and Reference). Challenge has also been made toorder dated 22.4. 1993 (Annexure P-28) wherebyrepresentation of the petitioner for grant of promotionwith effect from 1976 was rejected with further challengeto order dated 2.2.1993 (Annexure P-22) whereby privaterespondents were promoted to the post of Deputy Director.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends thatone post of Public Relations Officer (Research andReference) fell vacant in the year 1977 in terms of the Haryana Public Relations (State Service Class -II) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1975 rules ''). In view of rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules, the petitioner wasentitled to be promoted. However, she was not considered,instead vide order dated 17.6. 1977 (Annexure P-5) one K.K.Aggarwal was posted as Public Relations Officer (Researchand Reference). This resulted in the petitioner beingignored for promotion in the regular channel. Thepetitioner was ultimately promoted on 12.12.1980. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has emphasised that petitionerwas entitled to promotion when post in question fellvacant. Due to denial of this opportunity marring thepromotion prospects of the petitioner, she was also deniedconsequential monetary benefits. He has placed reliance on judgments in Hem Raj Kalia vs. State of Punjab and others,CWP No.7995 of 1994, decided on 26.7. 1995 and S.S. Sodhi Vs. State of Punjab and others,

Learned State counsel has, however, vehementlyopposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner was workingas a Statistical Assistant at the relevant time when postof Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) fellvacant. The government in its discretion transferred K.K. Aggarwal to the said post. According to him, rule 9(d)(i)of the 1975 rules prescribes for recruitment to the postof Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) bypromotion through selection from amongst StatisticalAssistants. According to him, rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules is not attracted to the instant case as same talks ofrecruitment by promotion. He submits that in case thegovernment had resorted to recruitment in terms of rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules, it would have to draw up a paneland carry out a selection process and in that eventualitythe petitioner would have had a right to be considered.However, the answering respondent took recourse to rule 15 of the 1975 rules and decided to post another officer onthe post of Public Relations Officer (Research andReference). He referred to rule 15 of the 1975 rules tocontend that posts of Public Relations Officer, Editor,Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) and District Public Relations Officer are interchangeable innature and have a joint seniority list.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties andgiven careful thought to the facts of the case.

At the outset, it may be relevant to refer to the rules which have been cited before this court. Rule 9(d)(i)of the 1975 rules reads as follows: -

Recruitment to the Service shall be made

..... ..... ..... .....

(d) in the case of Public Relations Officer(Research and Reference) -

(i) by promotion through selection fromamongst the Statistical Assistants.

Rule 15 of the said rules reads as follows: -

15.The jobs of Public Relations Officers,Editors and Public Relations Officer (Researchand Reference) and District Public RelationsOfficers shall be interchangeable and all thePublic Relations Officers shall have joint seniority.

Petitioner joined service on 13.4.1971 asStatistical Assistant. In the year 1977, a post of PublicRelations Officer (Research and Reference) fell vacant.Order (Annexure P-5) was passed by the Director, PublicRelations, Haryana, posting one K.K. Aggarwal as PublicRelations Officer against the said post. The operative partof the order reads thus: -

Consequent upon the promotion/appointmentof Shri Devi Shankar Prabhakar, Public RelationsOfficer (R&R) as Deputy Director (R&R) Shri K.K.Aggarwal, Public Relations Officer is posted asPublic Relations Officer (R&R).

Sd/-Director Public Relations, Haryana

As a result of said posting, the post became unavailableand no effort was made by the answering respondent to fillup the same by way of promotion. The petitioner was,however, promoted as Public Relations Officer (Research andReference) in the year 1980 when two additional posts werecreated. Admittedly, this promotion was made in accordancewith the procedure prescribed under rule 9(d)(i) of the1975 rules. Claim of the petitioner is that she deserved tobe promoted in the year 1977. As opportunity was notgranted to her in the year 1977 for promotion to the saidpost, this resulted in denial of due seniority andconsequential benefits over respondents No.4 to 19. Thestand of the State is that none of respondents No.4 to 19was junior to petitioner. The petitioner was working asStatistical Assistant while respondents No.4 to 19 werealready working as Public Relations Officer at the relevanttime. Even K.K. Aggarwal, who was posted vide order(Annexure P-5) was already a Public Relations Officer. Theclaim of the petitioner is, of course, based on the premisethat in case she had been promoted on the post of PublicRelations Officer (Research and Reference) in the year1977, she would have stolen a march over respondents No.4to 19. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted in themeanwhile and she can only claim notional promotion andconsequential benefits.

It is, thus, evident that the claim of the petitioner is based only on the fortuitous circumstance that had the post of Public Relation Officer (Research and Reference) which fell vacant in 1977, been filled by way of promotion, she would have been in the consideration zone.However, same was field up by posting one K.K. Aggarwal whowas admittedly senior to the petitioner. The posting ofsaid officer was done in accordance with the rules. Thus,plea of the petitioner is based on very weak footing. Thejudgments relied upon in Hem Raj Kalia ''s case and S.S.Sodhi ''s case cannot help the case of the petitioner. Thepetition is, thus, with out any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Dismissed.