CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 1988 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 17,2009
Som Nath and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. S. D. Sharma, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of
mandamus as well as certiorari for quashing the seniority list,
Annexure P-4, and further direction to the respondents to promote
them to the posts of Clerk.
Petitioner No.1 joined as Peon on 9.8.1976 with Matric as
a qualification in the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner, Kurukshetra. He subsequently improved his
qualification and passed inter in the year 1978. Petitioner No.2 joined
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 1988 :{ 2 }:
the Department as a Peon with Matric as a qualification on 9.1.1975.
The petitioners claimed that they have good service record. In the
year 1982, a seniority list of Peons was prepared for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Clerk. In this seniority list, petitioner No.1
was placed at Sr.No.50 whereas petitioner No.2 was placed at
Sr.No.16 of the seniority list. Respondent Nos.3 to 30 were not
shown in the seniority list. It is pleaded that respondent Nos.3 to 20
were not Matriculate and, therefore, their names were not shown in
the said seniority list issued in the year 1982.
Reference is made to Rule 9(1)(e) of the Haryana Excise
and Taxation Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial (Group C)
Service Rules, 1981, which regulates the recruitment to the posts of
Clerks to the service. This Rule provides that the Clerks and Camp
Clerks are to be appointed by direct recruitment or by promotion from
amongst Group D employees and Group C employees whose scale
of pay is less than that of a Clerk; provided that not more than twenty
percent of the posts shall be filled in by this method. Third method of
appointment of Clerks was by transfer or deputation of an official
already in the service of any State Government of India. It is urged
that 20% of the posts are to be filled from amongst the Peons, who
are working in the Department. On the basis of this Rule, the persons
shown at Sr.Nos.2,3,5,7, 9, 21 and 22 in the seniority list issued in
the year 1982 were promoted to the post of Clerks. Shri Raunki Ram
and Raj Pal were given the benefit of Backward Class quota but later
on these officials were reverted after four months. They challenged
their reversion orders by filing Civil Writ Petition No.3918 of 1986,
which was admitted and the same was statedly pending, when this
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 1988 :{ 3 }:
writ petition was filed. The writ petition was admitted on 26.11.1988.
No reply, in the meantime, has been filed. However, there is no need
to wait for the reply in view of the limited relief claimed in the writ
petition.
The petitioners makes a grievance that suddenly in the
year 1987, without issuance of any notice to them, the seniority list
issued in the year 1982 was completely changed and the seniority
places of the petitioners also underwent a change to their detriment.
Petitioner No.2, who was earlier shown at Sr.No.16 in the seniority
list, now is shown at Sr.No.31 whereas the name of petitioner No.1
has been deleted from the seniority list. Despite best efforts, the
petitioners have not been able to procure the complete seniority list,
indicating the place where petitioner No.1 has now been shown in
the said seniority list. It is in this background, the petitioners have
challenged the seniority list issued in the year 1987 with a prayer that
the same be quashed. Further direction sought in the writ petition by
the petitioners is that they be promoted to the posts of Clerk under
the 20% quota in accordance with Rules.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that the seniority
list, which was drawn in the year 1982 was changed in the year 1987
without issuance of any notice to them. The petitioners certainly have
acquired certain rights as per the seniority assigned to them in
seniority list issued in the year 1982. If this seniority was to be
changed to their detriment, the respondents were required to adhere
to the principle of natural justice. The respondents could be expected
to disclose the reasons to the petitioners, which had called for this
change of seniority. Without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 1988 :{ 4 }:
petitioners, the order to their disadvantage could not have been
made.
Clearly, the seniority list as was issued in the year 1982,
has been changed in the year 1987 without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners. This change of seniority list, thus,
apparently is in violation of the principle of natural justice and may
not be sustainable. However, the second prayer of the petitioners
that they be promoted to the posts of Clerk can not be considered
and granted as prayed. Firstly, the seniority of petitioner No.2, even
in the original list, was at No.16 and that of petitioner No.1 at 50.
There were large number of other Peons, who were senior to them. It
is also not clear whether petitioner No.2 was also due for promotion
as per the original seniority list. The reasons for changing the
seniority list are also not disclosed. Since this seniority has been
changed without following the principle of natural justice, it will be fair
to direct the respondents to hear the petitioners and then pass an
order afresh, fixing their seniority in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to serve a show cause notice to the
petitioners disclosing the reasons for which the seniority list is/was
required to be changed. The respondents would, however, be at
liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording
appropriate opportunity of hearing to the effected persons.
August 17,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi JUDGE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 1988 :{ 5 }: