CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 11,2009
Kiran Bala
.....Petitioner
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. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The issue raised is about the status of a post of Statistical
Assistant and Assistant Statistical Assistant vis-a-vis a post of Clerk
etc.
The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Computer
Clerk on 28.5.1973 in the pay scale of Rs.110-225, was promoted as
Junior Statistical Assistant on 18.9.1974, carrying a pay scale of
Rs.160-400. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer,
which was re-designated as a Computer Clerk. The petitioner has
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 2 }:
claimed seniority over respondent No.3, who had joined the
Department as a Clerk saying that Computer Clerk is higher post. It
is otherwise conceded that the pay scale for the Clerk was also
Rs.110-225. The second ground to claim seniority is that the pay
scale of Junior Statistical Assistant is equivalent to the Assistant on
the clerical side and on this basis the petitioner claims seniority over
respondent No.3, who continued to work as a Clerk. The petitioner
was subsequently promoted as Statistical Assistant on 18.9.1976,
which carried a pay scale of Rs.225-500. On 2.3.1981, however, she
was again reverted to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant.
It is averred that pay scale of Junior Statistical Assistant
as well as of Assistant on the clerical side was revised to Rs.520-
1050. The pay scale of the Clerk, however, was revised to Rs.400-
660. In fact, the petitioner was promoted as a Field Investigator,
which is not called as Statistical Assistant, on 18.9.1976. Her
reversion had followed on the ground that one Vinay Jhingan, who
was earlier ignored, was required to be promoted to the post of Field
Investigator, on adverse remarks in his ACR having been expunged.
On 9.3.1982, Rules known as Haryana Labour
Department (Group C) Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Rules”) were published. Appendix A to the Rules gives out
various posts in the cadre. Grievance is that respondent No.3 was
promoted as Statistical Assistant on 8.3.1983 without considering the
claim of the petitioner. The petitioner represented against injustice
done to her. The promotion of respondent No.3 and one Zile Singh
was, thus, cancelled. Subsequently, an order promoting the petitioner
as well as Zile and respondent No.3 as Statistical Assistants was
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 3 }:
made but inter-se seniority was not determined. As per the petitioner,
post of Junior Statistical Assistant is clearly superior to that of the
Clerk as it is a promotional post for Clerks, Computer Clerks,
Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers. It is accordingly
pleaded that there can not be a promotion to a post which is
equivalent to the said post. By making reference to Rule 9 (4) of the
Rules, it is stated that the inter-se seniority for the promoted post is
to be determined by the date of continuous appointment in the
respective cadre. Grievance is made that Junior Statistical Assistant
can not be clubbed or equated with Junior Scale Stenographer or
Steno-typist or Clerk or Computer Clerk in the matter of promotion to
the post of Statistical Assistant, which has been done as per Rule 9
(1)(m). On this basis, it is pleaded that un-equals are being treated
equals and even the provisions of the Rule 9(1)(m) are questioned
on this ground. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the order
declaring her junior to respondent No.3. The petitioner would pray
that un-equals are being treated as equal, which can not be done.
In the reply filed by the official respondents, it is stated
that respondent No.3 is senior to the petitioner as he was appointed
as a Clerk on 29.11.1971 whereas the petitioner was also appointed
as Clerk on 28.5.1973. It is stated that the petitioner was promoted
as Junior Statistical Assistant purely on temporary basis. Reference
is made to the rules to point out that Junior Statistical Assistant or
Readers or Rent Collectors and Junior Scale Stenographers,
Stenotypists, Clerks or Computer Clerks having four years
experiences were eligibles for promotion to the post of Statistical
Assistant. The case of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 was
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 4 }:
accordingly considered for promotion and respondent No.3 was
promoted.
Respondent No.3 has also filed a separate reply where
he has stated that even the promotion of the petitioner to the post of
Junior Statistical Assistant was done in a questionable manner. It is
stated that the petitioner was promoted by violating all the canons of
fairness and rule of law, as she was so promoted at the behest of her
father, who was then working as Under Secretary in the office of
Chief Secretary, Haryana, who had pressurized respondent No.2 to
promote the petitioner by ignoring the claim of others.
The whole case set-up by the petitioner is that she was
senior to respondent No.3 as the post of Computer Clerk could not
be equated with the post of Clerk. Similarly, she was promoted as
Junior Statistical Assistant, which is a promotional post for Clerks,
Computer Clerks, Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers. The
petitioner would accordingly urge that Clerks, Computer Clerks,
Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers can not be made
eligible for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, which is
done in view of Rule 9(1)(m) of the Rules. Submission is that persons
holding those very posts are eligible for promotion to the post of
Junior Statistical Assistant whereas they have also been made
eligible for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, which would
be unfair and inequitable.
A minute perusal of the Rules would reveal that the
submission made by the petitioner is misconceived. The method of
recruitment to various posts is provided under Rule 9. As per Rule 9
(1)(m), 66 % of posts of Statistical Assistants is required to be filled
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 5 }:
by promotion from amongst the Junior Statistical Assistants or
Readers or Rent Collectors or Junior Scale Stenographers or
Stenotypists or Clerks or Computer Clerks. 34% is by way of direct
recruitment or by transfer on deputation of an official already in
service. Thus, Junior Statistical Assistant as well as Clerk or
Computer Clerks are a feeder post for Statistical Assistant. This is
the cause of grievance by the petitioner, who would say that un-
equals have been equated as Clerk or Computer Clerks are also the
feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant.
Rule 9(1)(p) is referred to in this regard to show that Junior
Statistical Assistants are to be promoted from amongst the Junior
Scale Stenographers or Stenotypists or Clerks or Computer Clerks. A
perusal of Rule 9(1)(n) and 9(1)(o) would further show that Reader
as well as Rent Collector are promotional posts for Junior Scale
Stenographers, Stenotypists, Clerks or Computer Clerks.
Apparent impression would seem to emerge that unequal
have been equated. However, reference to Appendix B to the Rules,
which prescribes qualification and experience for appointment/
promotion to various posts would dispel this apparent impression.
For promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant by way of direct
recruitment, essential academic qualification is a degree of Bachelor
of Arts from recognized University with Economics or Public
Administration or Mathematics or Sociology with Statistics or Social
survey and in addition to, 3 years experience in collection,
compilation and analysis of Labour statistics, knowledge of Hindi
upto Matric standard is also the requirement. The essential
educational qualification and experience for appointment by way of
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 6 }:
other than direct recruitment to the post of Statistical Assistant is a
degree in bachelor of Arts of a recongised University with economics
or Public Administration or Mathematics or Sociology with Statistics
or Social Survey. For such appointment/promotion, three experience
as a Junior Statistical Assistant or a Reader or a Rent Collector and
4 years experience as a Junior Scale Stenographer or a Stenotypist,
or a Clerk or Computer Clerk is prescribed as essential requirement.
Direct appointment to the post of Reader, Rent Collector or Junior
Statistical Assistant is not provided. These posts are promotional
posts for a Junior Scale Stenographer or Stenotypist or Clerk or
Computer Clerk but 3 years experience is provided as essential
condition for promotion to these posts of Reader, Rent Collector and
Junior Statistical Assistant.
Reading of these provisions would clearly show that a
Clerk or Computer Clerk etc. can directly be considered for
promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant and as well as to the
post of Reader, Rent Collector and Junior Statistical Assistant.
However, unlike Reader, Rent Collector and Junior Statistical
Assistant, they have to have four years experience for being eligible
for consideration for the post of Statistical Assistant whereas this
condition of experience is three years in the case of Junior Statistical
Assistant or Reader or Rent Collector. There is even a clear
distinction in regard to requirement of educational qualification as
well as the requirement of experience. For a Clerk or Computer Clerk
to seek promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, he has to have
a degree of Bachelor of Arts, which is not the requirement for him
when he is to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 7 }:
Statistical Assistant or Rent Collector or of Reader. For such
promotion, requirement is three years experience for Clerk or
Computer Clerk whereas for promotion to the post of Statistical
Assistant, such experience is four years as provided in the Rules. It
can, thus, be said that it is not a case of unequal being equated.
There is a clear distinction made in the rules and the submissions
made by counsel for the petitioner on the ground that unequals have
been equated can not be accepted. The submission that the
petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 in this background also is
misconceived and, thus, can not be accepted. There is, thus, no
merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
August 11, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE