Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990
Date of decision: 10.11.2009
Ram Sarup Masoon ...petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioner, who was working as Junior Analyst in the
Food & Supplies Department, had filed this writ petition seeking
direction for considering his case for promotion to the post of Head
Analyst against 16 point reserved on the roster for Backward Class
candidates. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner
has expired and his legal representatives have been substituted as
the petitioners. The petitioner has staked his claim for promotion
w.e.f. 26.11.1986 that is the date when respondent No.3, Rajbir
Singh was promoted as Head Analyst as he was allegedly promoted
against roster point 16 meant for Backward Class candidate.
Conceded position otherwise is that the petitioner subsequently was
promoted as Head Analyst on 9.10.1995. The petitioner, however,
claims that he was entitled to this promotion w.e.f. 26.11.1986.
Though he is no more but still the benefit, which would accrue to him
on account of this back date promotion ultimately would benefit his
Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 2
legal representatives for the purpose of fixing his family pension and
other pensionary benefits.
This writ petition had come up for hearing earlier also and
on direction issued by this Court, the affidavit was filed by Mr. N.S.
Dhania, Under Secretary, Government of Haryana, Food and
Supplies Department. The details mentioned in the affidavit would
show the reason for which the Roster point 16 was not given to the
petitioner. Though it is conceded that Roster point 16 was meant for
Backward Class category candidates but it is pointed out that there
were total 38 posts of Head Analyst out of which 33% was to be
filled by direct recruitment and 67% by promotion. It is also stated
that between 18.9.1979 to 13.2.1990, 17 vacancies in the Cadre of
Head Analysts were filled. 15 out of these were filed by promotion
and two by direct recruitment. 10th and 16th points in these were
reserved by Backward Class candidates. Only one point at Roster
10 was consumed by Backward Class category. The next point was
meant at Roster point 16. It is then explained that Head Analyst
Balbir Singh of General category and Ram Singh of Scheduled Caste
category were promoted as Roster point No. 13 and 14 meant for
General category and Scheduled Caste category. They were so
promoted after giving them military service benefit towards seniority
vide order dated 24.3.1986. As a consequence of this Sh. Rajbeer
Singh and Balwan Singh, Head Analyst, who were senior and
promoted as such prior to the revised seniority had to be reverted to
Junior Analyst as per the same order, copy Annexure R/1. It is
further pointed out Sh. Gian Chand Gupta, Junior Analyst, who was
promoted on 1.3.1984 as Head Analyst was reverted from the post to
Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 3
Junior Analyst on 24.3.1986 on account of the fact that one Mohlar
Singh, who was dismissed from the Government service on
31.1.1977 was reinstated consequent to the judgment passed by
Senior Sub Judge, Chanigarh on 16.1.1985. He was ordered to be
reinstated in a Civil Appeal filed by him in the year 1984. Since
these three persons who are otherwise required to be reverted
because of this situation, the department took up the case with the
Government for relaxation of 10% cut imposed for promotion as per
the policy due to economic measures. The permission was so
granted by the Government but on the condition that against these
posts only the candidates, who were otherwise required to be
reverted would be adjusted. Accordingly, against these vacancies
specifically released, Balwan Singh, Rajbir Singh and Gian Chand
were promoted on 10.12.1986.
Roster point 16 could not be given to the petitioner
though it officially belong to the Backward Class as it was to save the
person from being reverted. If this concession has not been given by
the Government, the petitioner would not have been entitled to be
promoted against Roster point 16. Since this concession was given
only for a specific purpose, this is advanced as a justification not to
fill the Roster point 16 from the Backward Class candidate.
Subsequently, when the vacancies arose, 3 vacancies of direct
quota were caused and out of 3 posts, the petitioner was given
promotion against one of these vacant posts w.e.f. 12.10.1995 to
complete the short fall of one Backward Class candidates. The
justification offered by the respondents appears well founded. It is
true that a particular Roster point was meant for the petitioner being
Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 4
Backward Class but there is a justifiable reason for not giving this
post to him. If this relaxation had not been granted by the
Government, the petitioner still would not have been entitled to be
promoted. Since this relaxation was granted on a particular
condition, the same could not have been ignored. This may have
resulted to some prejudice to the case of the petitioner for promotion
but the course adopted by the respondents cannot be termed as
illegal and unjust. Thus it would not call for interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has subsequently been promoted and
now his LRs are getting family pension for the post he would have
got, if he had promoted against Roster point 16. In this view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances, I do not consider it justified to
interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
November 10, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE