SHRIRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was promoted as an Assistant Engineer in the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) prays that he is entitled to be promoted with effect from July 28, 1982 when respondent No. 5, who was junior to him was promoted. A prayer for restoration of seniority over and above respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has also been made. A few facts may be noticed,

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as Junior Engineer on July 4,1988. He passed the AMIE examination on March 6, 1982. This fact was communicated by the petitioner to the authorities vide his representations dated March 31,1982, July 5,1982 and November 25, 1982. In spite of that, respondent No. 5, who was appointed as Junior Engineer after the petitioner, was promoted as Assistant Engineer on July 28, 1982, So far as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, they were admittedly promoted as Assistant Engineers on February 2,1978, December 23,1977 and November 29,1979 respectively. The petitioner was thereafter promoted vide order dated March 1,1985. Relying on the instructions issued by the Board vide its letter dated January 4, 1977, the petitioner represented that he was entitled to the restoration of his seniority above respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers, When the representations did not lead to any fruitful results, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 7892 of 1989. This petition was heard and disposed of by the Motion Bench on June 13, 1989 with a direction to the Board to dispose of the representation within three months from the date of receipt of the order". In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the Board passed an order dated October 17,1989 by which the instructions dated January 4, 1977 were withdrawn retrospectively. This decision (Annexure P-17) was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated October 17,1989, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-16. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised that the persons who had been recruited as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment are necessary parties and the writ petition is not competent in their absence. With regard to the promotion of respondent No. 5, it has been pointed out that he had passed the AMIE examination before December 1981. It is averred that his name was considered for promotion from the AMIE quota in December 1981. Due to procedural difficulties, the formal order could only be issued in July 1982. In the written statement it has been averred that the record, if required, shall be produced at the time of hearing. It has been further pointed out that the concerned Chief Engineer had sent the particulars of respondent No. 5 vide his letter dated September 8, 1981. In the case of the petitioner, the comments of the Chief Engineer are stated to have been received on August 10,1982. It is pointed out that since the case of respondent No. 5 had been processed much before the petitioner had passed the AMIE examination, the Board was justified in promoting respondent No. 5 on the basis of a list of AMIE qualified candidates that existed earlier. As regards the instructions dated January 4,1977 it has been averred that on account of the implementation of these instructions, the seniority of Assistant Engineers remained in a state of flux. Consequently, the Board in its meeting held on October 16, 1989 decided to withdraw these instructions retrospectively. On this premises, it is maintained that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. The petitioner has filed a replication to reiterate the claim made in the petition,