(1.) PETITIONER Shiv Dayal Dabra and others have invoked Articles 226 and of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of Rule 5(ii) of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department (Group B) Service Rules, 1988 (for short 'the Rules') and for a direction to the respondents to grant the necessary consequential reliefs to the petitioners.
(2.) THE relevant facts alleged are that petitioner No. 1 Shiv Dayal Dabra was born on 15.3.1941, He crossed the age of 54 years on 15.3.1995. He is a Graduate. He had joined the ministerial service on 9.3. I960 and was promoted as Excise Inspector on 3.4.1975. Petitioner No. 2 Lajpat Rai was born on 19.4.1943. He crossed the age of 54 on 19.4.1997, He joined the ministerial service on 4.4.1972. He is a Graduate. He was promoted as Excise Inspector on 19.9.1986. Petitioner No. 3 S.C. Aggarwal was born on 1.4.1944. He crossed the age of 54 years on 1.4.1998. He is a Graduate and joined the ministerial service 22on 31.12.1961. He was promoted as Taxation Inspector on 13.5.1992.
(3.) IN the reply filed, the petition as such is contested. It has been pointed that petitioner No. 2 is not a Graduate. Before a person can be promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, he has to be a Graduate and, therefore, petitioner No. 2 cannot file the petition. So far as the case of D.S. Pathania is concerned, it was pointed that he was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. He was not promoted as Excise Inspector but was promoted as Taxation Inspector on 31.1.1986 instead of 13.6.1975. He fulfilled all the necessary conditions. It was pointed that Rule 5(ii) of the Rules is not illegal or ultra vires because it has been the case of the respondents that lien of the petitioners rests with the ministerial staff and if they seek promotion for quota reserved for ministerial staff, then Rule 5(ii) of the Rules comes into play. If they seek promotion from normal side for getting available for promotion of Excise/Taxation Inspector, then no age bar is prescribed.