J C YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 15th January, 1980 quashing the Notification dated 3rd May, 1973 issued by the State Government of Haryana promoting the appellants to the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I post (Public Health Branch).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants S /Sh. J. C. Yadav, B. R. Batra, O. P. Juneja, S. L. Chopra, M. S. Miglani, C. P. Taneja, SurJit Singh and V. P. Gulati and respondent Vyas Dev were members of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch. Members of the Class II service are eligible for promotion to Class I posts in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class I on ad hoc basis while Vyas Dev respondent was not considered for promotion. He made representation but nothing came out in his favour. Later a Committee was constituted under Rule 8 for selecting suitable members of Class II service for promotion to Class I post. The Committee considered the case of appellants and Vyas Dev respondent, but it did not find the respondent suitable for promotion, his name was not included in the select list prepared by the Committee while the names of the appellants were included therein. The Selection Committee's recommendation was approved by the Public Service Commission and it was forwarded to the State Government. Since the appellants did not possess the requisite minimum period of service of eight years' in Class II service as required by Rule 6(b) and as no other suitable candidates were available, the Selection Committee made recommendation to the State Government for granting relaxation to the appellants. The Committee's recommendation was reiterated by the Public Service Commission. The State Government accepted the recommendations and appointed the appellants to Class I service by the Notification dated May 3, 1973.

(3.) Vyas Dev, respondent challenged validity of the appellants' promotion by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the ground that the appellants did not possess requisite qualification for promotion to Class I service, therefore their promotions were contrary to Rules. His further grievance was that he was not considered along with the appellants for promotion and he was not afforded opportunity of hearing before he was superseded. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on the finding that the Selection Committee had considered the case of Vyas Dev along with the appellants for promotion but he was not found suitable. As regards the. appellants' promotions the learned Judge held that since the State Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in their favour their promotions were sustainable in law. The learned Judge further held that no personal hearing was necessary to be afforded to Ved Vyas before his supersession. On appeal by the respondent a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the single Judge and quashed the appellants' promotions on the sole ground that the State Government had no authority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants under Rule 22 in a general manner, as the power of relaxation could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate hardship caused to an individual. On these findings the Division Bench set aside the appellants' promotions.