SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for refixation of seniority vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 3 and 4. His contention is that he was recruited as a Tracer in the services of HUDA and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were also recruited to the same post and joined later than the petitioner. The petitioner figures as one amongst the seven appointees through an order issued by HUDA on 25.07.1978. The 4th respondent also figures as an appointee on the same date but placed at Sr. No. 7 while the petitioner had been placed at Sr. No.6. By an order issued on 12.12.1983, both the petitioner and the 4th respondent have been promoted the next higher post as Assistant Draftsman. The same order states that the promotion had been without prejudice to a decision of the disciplinary case against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent in his written statement referred to the fact that he was also appointed on the same date on 25.07.1978 against a regular vacancy (R3/1) and joined on 08.08.1978 in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Faridabad Circle.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that the 3rd respondent had proceeded on a long leave without seeking prior permission and on coming back to India when he joined the service, the Chief Administrator, HUDA had sought explanation asking the Chief Town Planner, HUDA as to how the 3rd respondent was allowed to join the office and the Chief Town Planner was requested to fix the responsibility for the lapse on the part of the Authorities and failing to direct the 3rd respondent to report to Head Office first. However, all these communications came to nothing other than an order of censure against the 3rd respondent on 25.10.1984.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the petitioner had completed his period of probation in the higher post of Assistant Draftsman on 12.12.1984. The contention of the petitioner is that the order of promotion of the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent had been issued only on 11.07.1988 and that meant that they were juniors to the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had already completed his probation successfully even on 12.12.1984. However, when the orders of promotion for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had been issued on 04.07.1988, it had been specifically stated that they had been appointed on permanent vacancies while the petitioner had been referred to as promoted purely on ad hoc basis against a leave vacancy of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, therefore, had a grievance that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not have been offered the permanent post while treating the petitioner himself as holding the post on ad hoc basis and gave a representation for reviewing the decision by a letter dated 18.07.1988. Reminder was given on 31.08.1988 and an office order was issued on 17.11.1988 in response to representations when the Chief Administrator, HUDA declared that the petitioner, who had been promoted only on purely ad hoc basis against vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste, was liable to be reverted as Assistant Draftsman at any time without any prior notice. It is this office order dated 17.11.1988, which is the subject of challenge in the writ petition. The petitioner would contend that with reference to the date of joining, the petitioner had joined on 31.07.1978 whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 joined on 08.08.1978 and 25.07.1978 respectively. He would further contend with reference to his seniority claims by referring to the fact that the petitioner had been promoted as Assistant Draftsman along with respondent Nos. 4 on 12.12.1983 and has successfully completed the probation on 12.12.1984 while the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant Draftsman on temporary basis only on 28.12.1984.