RADHEY SHIAM KHANNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learner counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, during the course of arguments, has abandoned all other claims to relief prayed for therein and now confines himself to the solitary claim of seeking a Mandamus against the respondent State directing them to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank. In view of this the issue is now indeed in a narrow compass and the facts relevant thereto alone deserve notice.

(2.) The petitioner originally joined the service in the erstwhile State of Pepsu and after the merger was confirmed as a Deputy Superintendent in the office of the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Punjab, in the year 1957 upon the integration of the services of the two States. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on April 10, 1959, and continued to work as such till July 12, 1965, when he was directed to be reverted by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Punjab. He appealed against the said reversion and succeeded and the common case of the parties is that this reversion was set aside and the petitioner was deemed to have continued working as a Superintendent throughout. By an order dated October 24, 1966 (Annexure R/III to the written Statement), the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, after considering the reply to the show cause notice against the petitioner directed that the petitioner be held up at the efficiency bat at. Rs. 500/- as on November 1,. 1963. It is further the averment of the petitioner that he continued to be held up at the efficiency bar right upto August, 1970. Meanwhile on the creation of the State of Haryana on November 1, 1966, the petitioner was allocated to the said State and he appealed to the Government of Haryana against the orders of directing his stoppage at the efficiency bar but the same was kept pending and not decided by the State for a period of namely 4 years till the 26th of August, 1970.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that during the pendency of his appeal directed against the order of his stoppage at the efficiency bar (the decision on which was inordinately delayed) and during the pendency of an earlier writ petition, the respondent-State on June 28 promoted one Shri Des Raj Kashyap who was junior to the petitioner in the final Gradation List to the post of the Registrar. It has been averred that the petitioner was not considered at all or at least not adequately considered because the order of the stoppage of efficiency bar (which was as yet under appeal) was wrongly taken into consideration against him. Similarly another person Shri Charanji Lal far junior to him was again promoted as Officer on Special Duty for identical reasons. The petitioner immediately represented against his supersession by the abovesaid two persons vide his representation Annexure 'D' dated June 29, 1968. That representation, according to him has not ever been now decided by the Government. However, the petitioner forthwith claimed his remedy by filing Civil Writ No. 1389 in July 1968, in which he challenged his stoppage at the efficiency bar by the impugned order and further challenged the supersession by his juniors. This writ petition was decided on February 24, 1970, by Tuli, J., who whilst holding the same to be premature because the Government had not yet decided the petitioner's appeal, nevertheless issued the following direction :-