CHANDER PRABHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature ofmandamus for grant of seniority and all consequentialbenefits with effect from 22.4. 1976 when she was eligiblefor promotion to the post of Public Relations Officer(Research and Reference). Challenge has also been made toorder dated 22.4. 1993 (Annexure P-28) wherebyrepresentation of the petitioner for grant of promotionwith effect from 1976 was rejected with further challengeto order dated 2.2.1993 (Annexure P-22) whereby privaterespondents were promoted to the post of Deputy Director.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends thatone post of Public Relations Officer (Research andReference) fell vacant in the year 1977 in terms of the Haryana Public Relations (State Service Class -II) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 rules '). In view of rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules, the petitioner wasentitled to be promoted. However, she was not considered,instead vide order dated 17.6. 1977 (Annexure P-5) one K.K.Aggarwal was posted as Public Relations Officer (Researchand Reference). This resulted in the petitioner beingignored for promotion in the regular channel. Thepetitioner was ultimately promoted on 12.12.1980. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has emphasised that petitionerwas entitled to promotion when post in question fellvacant. Due to denial of this opportunity marring thepromotion prospects of the petitioner, she was also deniedconsequential monetary benefits. He has placed reliance on judgments in Hem Raj Kalia vs. State of Punjab and others,CWP No.7995 of 1994, decided on 26.7. 1995 and S.S. Sodhi vs. State of Punjab and others, 1990 2 SCC 694.

(3.) Learned State counsel has, however, vehementlyopposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner was workingas a Statistical Assistant at the relevant time when postof Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) fellvacant. The government in its discretion transferred K.K. Aggarwal to the said post. According to him, rule 9(d)(i)of the 1975 rules prescribes for recruitment to the postof Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) bypromotion through selection from amongst StatisticalAssistants. According to him, rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules is not attracted to the instant case as same talks ofrecruitment by promotion. He submits that in case thegovernment had resorted to recruitment in terms of rule 9(d)(i) of the 1975 rules, it would have to draw up a paneland carry out a selection process and in that eventualitythe petitioner would have had a right to be considered.However, the answering respondent took recourse to rule 15 of the 1975 rules and decided to post another officer onthe post of Public Relations Officer (Research andReference). He referred to rule 15 of the 1975 rules tocontend that posts of Public Relations Officer, Editor,Public Relations Officer (Research and Reference) and District Public Relations Officer are interchangeable innature and have a joint seniority list.