Civil Writ Petition No.3569 of 2008
*****
Hari Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others
Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana
for the State.
*****
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant
relaxation to the petitioner as granted to some similarly situated
persons. He, however, has not clarified as to what relaxation he is
seeking. Counsel for the petitioner then orally submits that prayer
was for relaxing the rules for qualifying in departmental examination,
which was considered in cases of some other persons, who were
similarly situated. During course of arguments, the counsel, however,
has pressed for considering grant of second prayer made in the writ
petition, which is to the effect that atleast there should be one
channel for promotion provided to him, there being none available as
on date. This part of the prayer made by the petitioner may deserve
consideration. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied
upon Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp)Supreme
Court Cases 688 and Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research and another Vs. K.G.S.Bhatt and another, (1989) 4
Supreme Court Cases 635. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case
of Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain (supra), after considering various aspects of
the issue observed that there is no justification why similarly placed
officers of any Ministry would have benefit of promotion and the
Civil Writ Petition No.3569 of 2008 :{ 2 }:
petitioner therein would be deprived of such advantage. It was
observed that promotion increases efficiency in public service while
stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that model rules be
framed in the said Ministry with such alteration as may be necessary
to provide atleast one channel of promotion. In the light of the
observations made above, the prayer of the petitioner requires
consideration.
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to consider this part of the claim made
by the petitioner in the petition and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
August 4, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE