Y.S. GULIA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman in the year 1957. He was promoted to the post of Shift Engineer in 1978 On June 21, 1985, the Establishment Sub Committee of Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') decided to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. A copy of the order of promotion issued by the Managing Director on June 22, 1985 is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. The proceedings of the Establishment Sub-Committee are at Annexure P.2. Under the orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Registrar'), the matter was placed before the Board of Directors in the meeting held on Nov. 29, 1985. At this meeting it is averred that the Board found that the promotion could be made with the approval of the Establishment Sub Committee and that the matter was not required to be placed before the Board of Directors. Mr. S.N. Goyal, who was present at the meeting as a nominee of the Registrar, disagreed with the view expressed by the Directors of the Sugar Mill and recorded his note of dissent. Vide letter dated Dec. 14, 1985, the Managing Director referred the matter to the Government. A copy of this letter is placed on record as Annexure P.7. This factum of the dissent recorded by the nominee of the Registrar has been specifically noticed. Note of dissent recorded by Mr. Goyal as reproduced in the letter at Annexure P.7 reads as under :

(2.) I oppose this promotion of Sh. Y.S. Gulia as Deputy Chief Engineer on following grounds:-

(3.) The primary grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is two- fold. Firstly it has been averred that the provisions of Sec. 29 were not attracted to the facts of the present case. Secondly, the claim of the petitioner is that a large number of persons possessing the same qualifications as those possessed by the petitioner are working in various other Sugar Mills in the State and that the petitioner has alone been singled out for this promotion. It has also been stated that no qualifications have been prescribed by the Registrar for the purpose of promotion from the post of Shift Engineer to that of Chief Engineer and in such a situation, the order of his reversion was wholly illegal. Allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 4 have also been made. It has been suggested that he was interested in the appointment if his son Mr. Sudhir Kumar Abrol, who was junior to the petitioner and as such all actions had men manoeuvred against the petitioner.