SHIV KUMAR DHIMAN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Executive Engineer with the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the HUDA) is aggrieved by the order dated August 27,1990 by which Mr J.S. Chaudhary respondent No. 3 were given the current duty charge of the post of Superintendent Engineer as an ad hoc arrangement. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Divisional Engineer with the HUDA on June 1,1977. He was promoted as an Executive Engineer on September 13,1985. As against this, respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Sub Divisional Engineer on May 16, 1977. He was, according to the petitioner appointed as an Executive Engineer on April 29, 1986. It is further averred that the service conditions of the parties are governed by the draft regulations of the rules which have been prepared by the HUDA in exercise of powers conferred by Section 34 of the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is claimed by the petitioner that these rules have been meticulously followed although the same have not been approved adopted for, as for all intents and purposes, they are binding in nature." Relying on the provisions of these rules, it has been averred that "an officer who is having the qualification of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil or Equivalent) with 7 years' experience as Executive Engineer' is to be appointed to the post of Superintending Engineer. It has been further averred that the post of Superintending Engineer fell vacant in the year 1990. No officer including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was eligible to be promoted on regular basis to the post of Superintending Engineer. Apprehending that respondent No. 3 who "is having links with various ministers and may usurp the post of Superintending Engineer', the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge I Class, Ambala City, on August 22,1990, praying for permanent injunction restiain-ing the defendants from promoting Mr J.S. Chaudhary, respondent No. 3. On August 23,1990 the Civil Court directed the petition's notice to the defendants and fixed the case for August 30, 1990. While the matter was pending before the Civil Court, the HUDA issued an order dated August 27, 1990 by which the current duty charge of the vacant post of Superintending Engineer was given to respondent No. 3. On December 13, 1990, the stay application filed by the petitioner is alleged to have been disposed of on the ground that the relief claimed had become infructuous. Aggrieved by this order of the learned trial Court, the petitioner approached the Appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Ambala City on December 21,1990. The learned Appellate Court issued directions to the trial Court "to rehear the stay application of the petitioner--------\ On March 12,1991 the matter came up before the Court. The petitioner withdrew the suit with permission to file a new one. A copy of the order passed by the Court on March 12,1991 has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. It is averred that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed applications before respondent No. 2 for the consideration of his claim. Having failed to get any relief he has approached this Court through the present petition to challenge the order dated August 27,1990 on various grounds.

(3.) A prayer has also been made against the order dated September 10, 1990 by which it was directed 'Shri S.CMalik, Executive Engineer, HUDA, Divn. II, Panchkula will look after the work of HUDA Divn. I Panchkula in addition to his present duties.