MANOJ KUMAR Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for quashing of the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, on 10.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Clerk. THE rejection has been, as the impugned order reads, for the post of Group 'C' and Group 'D', who were matriculates, where 20% posts were to be filled up by promotion in the cadre strength which was determined at the district level. THEre existed 52 sanctioned posts of Clerks in different Municipal Committees in district and if 20% of the posts were to be set apart towards promotion quota, it would mean 10 posts for Clerks and since 10 posts had already been filled up, the petitioner could not be considered and as and when any vacancy arose, he would be issued with appropriate orders. THE impugned order would, therefore, make it appear that the petitioner was otherwise fully qualified for being considered to the promotion to the post of a Clerk, but since no vacancy existed presently, the petitioner could not be favoured with an order of appointment.

(2.) THE petitioner would contest the claim of the respondents by pointing out to the fact that he had joined as Sweeper in the Municipal Committee, Assandh on 19.03.1999, having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Assandh and he obtained matriculation qualification subsequently and had also completed 5 years of experience on 18.03.2004, the requisites for being considered to the post of Clerk. THE petitioner had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Karnal, seeking a consideration for promotion which was originally decreed on 26.10.2006, but in the appeal filed before the District Court, Karnal, by the respondents, it was modified on 04.12.2007 to provide for a direction to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider his case and pass appropriate orders. THE petitioner would contend that there were two posts still lying vacant in the department at the time when the consideration was made by the Deputy Commissioner and in any event after 17.12.2007, number of employees had already been retired and vacancies do exist, but the post has not been given to him.

(3.) I will go with the statement of the State contending that as and when vacancies arise in the post of Clerk within the sanctioned strength for the promotion quota, the petitioner will be considered and promoted in the order of seniority. Without pointing out to the fact that there exists actually a vacancy in the promotion quota, the petitioner cannot obtain promotion by the only fact that there is a vacancy in the post of Clerk. He should prove two things: (i) that there is a vacancy in the post of Clerk and (ii) that vacancy is towards the promotion quota. Such facts are not brought out in the petition and the documents filed in court. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be assailed and the writ petition ought to fail and is, consequently, dismissed.