C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008
Date of decision : January 20, 2009
Smt Urmila Rais
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
State of Haryana and others
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for respondent No.1
Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
This writ petition has been filed for challenging the
advertisement dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-15) by which the District Red
Cross Society, Gurgaon advertised the post of Secretary.
The petitioner was appointed as Warden in the Working
Women Hostel, Red Cross Society, Gurgaon on 19.8.1994. Since the
earlier incumbent died in harness, the petitioner moved an application dated
C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::2::
21.2.2005 for adjustment against the post of Secretary and by order dated
5.5.2005, respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner as officiating Secretary
on the following conditions :-
“1. That she will continue to draw her salary as
Warden, Working Women Hostel and would stake no
claim over the Secretary, Red Cross, Gurgaon nor she
would be given any additional allowance/pay.
2. That her terms of conditions for the post of
Warden shall remain unchanged.
3. That the said orders are purely temporary and have
no bearing over the natural course of
selection/promotion/transfer for the post of Secretary,
Red Cross Society, Gurgaon.”
On 23.5.2005, respondent No.3 forwarded his recommendation
to the President, State Red Cross Society Gurgaon (Governor of Haryana)
proposing regular appointment of the petitioner as Secretary. It is the
petitioner’s case that thereafter for a short while she was divested of the post
but was again appointed on officiating basis and by order dated 7.9.2007,
the President of the State Red Cross Society intimated that she had been
given the charge as officiating whole time Secretary till further orders. It
was further clarified that the said letter should not be mis-interpreted as
promotion for the post of Secretary. It is the further case of the petitioner
that she had been discharging duties as Secretary for this period to the entire
satisfaction of her superiors and that there have been earlier instances where
persons have been promoted as Secretary and, thus, the impugned
advertisement is illegal.
C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::3::
In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been taken
to the maintainability of the writ petition and reliance has been placed on
two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in CWP No.12538 of
1992, Kali Ram vs Indian Red Cross Society, decided on 17.2.1993 and
CWP No.14839 of 2001, Devinder Singh Dalas vs Union of India and
others decided on 25.9.2001. In the first decision dated 17.2.1993, it has
been specifically held that the Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch is not an
instrumentality of the State within the meaning of the expression of Article
12 of the Constitution of India. In the second decision dated 25.9.2001 the
Haryana State Council for Child Welfare has been held similarly not to be
State or its instrumentality.
Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand relies upon another
decision of this Court reported as The District Red Cross Society, Sirsa vs
Radha Kishan Rajpal and another, 2005(1) SCT 41, wherein it has been held
that the District Red Cross Society, Sirsa was amenable to writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the circumstances, counsel for the petitioner as well as
counsel for the respondents have urged that this petition should be referred
to a Larger Bench to finally determine this question.
In my opinion, on merits the petitioner has no case. In the
initial order giving additional charge to the petitioner, it was specifically
mentioned that the orders were purely temporary and would have no
bearing on the natural course of selection/promotion/transfer for the post of
Secretary, as noticed above. Even in the subsequent order dated 7.9.2007
also, it was clarified that the appointment as officiating whole time
Secretary would not be mis-interpreted as promotion. In the circumstances,
C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::4::
it cannot be held that any right was created in favour of the petitioner when
she was granted such officiating charge. That being so, no fault can be
found with the action of the respondents in advertising the post for which
the petitioner can also apply. In these circumstances, I hold that it would
not be necessary for me to refer the question regarding maintainability to a
Larger Bench and the same can be decided in a more appropriate case,
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to
costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) January 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'