KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) vide which the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Assistant from the post of Deputy Superintendent with immediate effect and respondent No.4 stood promoted as Deputy Superintendent by giving him benefit of reservation and applying the roster point by treating the post to be a cadre post.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is only one post of Deputy Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 sanctioned under the new Centrally Sponsored Scheme (Sharing Basis) on Micro Irrigation 2006-07 Plan. 24 posts were created vide sanction order dated 31.03.2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner, who was the senior most Assistant in the office of the Directorate of Horticulture, Haryana, was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent on 08.12.2009 vide Annexure P-4. This post is dependent upon the duration of the project and automatically will be abolished leading to the reversion of the incumbent to the feeder post. A representation was filed by respondent No.4, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, claiming the benefit of reservation on the ground that after the creation of an ex-cadre post under the project, the sanctioned strength of Deputy Superintendent had become plural i.e. 02 and therefore, reservation would be applicable and the roster point has to operate. Since respondent No.4 is the senior most in the reserved category, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. On the basis of the representation made by respondent No.4, Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, proceeded on the assumption that there was plurality of post of Deputy Superintendent and therefore, the roster point would operate and opined accordingly, leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) in which the petitioner stands reverted and in his place respondent No.4 has been promoted. He contends that the respondents have proceeded on wrong assumption that the post has to be counted in the cadre and with this sanction now there were two posts of Deputy Superintendents, has proceeded to treat it as a reserved post while under the project it is a single cadre post and therefore, there can be no reservation on the said post. Reliance has been placed by him on the instructions dated 03.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka and others (Civil Appeal No.4480 of 1990), it has been stated that there can be no reservation for a single cadre post and the roster point would operate where there is plurality of the post in the cadre.

(3.) On the last date of hearing when the case was taken up for consideration vide order dated 15.11.2011, respondent-State was directed to file specific affidavit as to whether the post of Deputy Superintendent now created by virtue of Central Scheme is ex-cadre post or not, to which response has been filed by the State wherein this has not been controverted. It has been stated that under the Scheme newly created post of Deputy Superintendent is under the Scheme and is not a regular cadre post. In the light of the said affidavit, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has wrongly been reverted by passing the impugned order and accordingly the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.