KIRAN MAYEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-5) by which the additional charge of Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, Haryana, Gurugram (hereinafter called as 'Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram') has been ordered to be given to respondent No.3, with a further prayer to declare respondent No.3 to be not eligible for taking the additional charge of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram.

(2.) A brief factual matrix which has led to filing of the present petition is that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Director in the pay scale of schedule-I pay matrix of HSC (Revised Pay Scale) 2016 vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.12.2017. Thereafter, on 11.12.2019 vide Annexure P-2 the petitioner was given additional charge of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram in addition to her present duties and no additional remuneration was to be paid to her. However, vide impugned order Annexure P-5, a decision has been taken to give additional charge of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram to respondent No.3 by withdrawing the same from petitioner. This decision has been taken by the State of Haryana. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the State in giving additional charge to respondent No.3 who was not even eligible for being appointed to the post of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram under the statutory rules namely State Council of Educational Research & Training, District Institute of Education & Training, Block Institute of Teachers Education & Government Elementary Teachers Training Institute (Group-A) Service Rules, 2014 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 2014' ).

(3.) Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, learned Advocate while arguing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that giving of additional charge of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram to respondent No.3 is totally illegal and contrary to the Statutory Rules of 2014. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that respondent No.3 did not fulfill the basic requisite qualifications for being appointed as Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram and, therefore, he could not have been given the additional charge of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram and therefore, the aforesaid impugned decision Annexure P-5 is liable to be set aside. He has referred to Rule 9 as well as Appendix-B to submit that the recruitment to the post of Director, SCERT, Haryana, Gurugram can be made by direct recruitment or by transfer or deputation of an officer already in the service of State Government or the Government of India. He submitted that respondent No.3 has been granted additional charge despite the fact that he was not in the service of State Government or the Government of India. Furthermore, respondent No.3 did not fulfill the academic qualifications and experience at all. The relevant portion of Rule 9 as well as Appendix-B is as under:-