Shri Vidya Sagar Sethi vs Raj Rani and Others

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.4.2002, allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1 in the following terms:

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The decision taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 vide Agenda Item No. 25 vide which respondent No. 3 Shri V.S. Sethi was promoted stands quashed. Consequently, the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Assistant Secretary also stands quashed. Let respondents No. 1 and 2 take a fresh decision within three months from the receipt of copy of this order considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date when respondent No. 3 was promoted. It is also made clear that in the event of promotion of the petitioner from the back date, it will not become her absolute right to get the salary of that interregnum period upto 29th October, 2001 as she did not work on the promotional post of Assistant Secretary. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Challenge in the writ petition was to promotion of the appellant to the post of Assistant Secretary on the ground of seniority of the writ petitioner having been overlooked. Learned Single Judge noticed that appointment of the writ petitioner was on 22.2.1969 as Clerk and 16.9.1975 as Assistant, while appointment of the appellant was on 2.11.1973 as Stenographer and on 6.9.1977 as Senior Scale Stenographer and thereafter, on 3.9.1985 as P.A.

The rule for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary relied upon in the writ petition was as under:

Sr. No. Designation Academic Qualification Method of of post and experience, if any promotion for appointment other than by direct rectt.

Assistant Has worked as By

Secretary Assistant or P.A. or Promotion Senior Scale StenoGrapher in HAFED for eight years.

Learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner had better claim for promotion and had longer service. Accordingly, order of promotion dated 5.3.1999 in favour of the writ petitioners, which was passed subject to the decision of the writ petition, was set aside.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the rule referred to in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is of 1988 and in fact, 1969 rules should have been referred to, which were adopted while preparing the seniority list, prepared on 31.12.1985. Alternatively, the appointment being in higher pay scale, he was entitled to preference in promotion. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in Sultan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1998(4) RSJ 524 and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2001(2) RSJ 237.

It has been pointed out that the writ petitioner has already retired and the appellant has also been given promotion. The grievance, however, raised is that the learned Single Judge set aside the promotion of the appellant which affects the date of his promotion.

We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. The learned Single Judge held that respondent No. 1 was senior in length of service in the feeder cadre. The judgments relied upon are in a situation where a person was holding higher or promotional post and are thus, distinguishable. It is not the case of the appellant that he was holding post which was promotional post of the writ petitioner.

It was next submitted that one Shri A.K. Chopra was similarly placed as the appellant was, but his appointment was not challenged and, thus, setting aside the appointment of the appellant was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

We do not find any substance in this plea. Legality of promotion of Shri Chopra, having not been put in issue, we do not find any ground to hold that Article 14 of the Constitution was violated.

The appeal is dismissed.