BIMLA MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the parties have consented that in both the writ petitions bearing No. 599 of 1989 and CWP No. 16745 of 1989 common questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore, the same be disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of judgment, the facts have been picked up from CWP No. 599 of 1989.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Staff Nurse on 25.11.1969 whereas respondent No. 5 namely Santosh Rani joined as such on 25.12.1970 and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal Tutor prior to respondent No. 5's promotion as such. The petitioner remained senior to respondent No. 5 throughout but the official respondents ignoring this fact have downgraded the petitioner's seniority.

(3.) Mr. Arun Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that respondent No. 5 was appointed as Sister Tutor alongwith others vide order dated 13.9.1982, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. She was never appointed by way of 'direct appointment' even though her name was recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). The Counsel further contended that in the light of the promotion order, Annexure P-3, respondent No. 5 could not be treated as senior to the petitioner, in any manner as the former was shown at Sr. No. 9 and latter being shown at Sr. No. 14 of the said promotion order.