SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in the service of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) since 7th Feb., 1979, To start with, he was a diploma-holder in Civil Engineering and possesses more than 13 years service and during service he qualified A.M.I.E. Examination, and on that basis he was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 17th Sept., 1986. After about five years service his promotion as Sub Divisional Officer was made on regular basis. On 13th June, 1991, he was entrusted with current duties/charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Kaithal, in his own pay scale, which functions he discharged for more than six months when by his order dated 6th Jan., 199(2 (Annexure P.6), the Chief Administrator of the Board posted one Shri Ram Niwas from the P.W.D. (B & R) as the Executive Engineer with the Board, depriving the petitioner of the current duties/charge of the post of Executive Engineer. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 6th Jan., 1992 (Annexure P.6), and thereby restoring the original position whereby the petitioner had been entrusted the current duties/charge of the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 13th June, 1991.

(2.) The main attack against the impugned order dated 6th Jan., 1992, is that it is without jurisdiction as the Chief Administrator was not competent to exercise jurisdiction in the face of the statutory provisions contained in Sec. 20 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and rule 6 of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974, as also the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 26th Dec., 1991; inasmuch as all the powers of appointment, suspension, dismissal, transfer, etc. with regard to the employees of the Board in the rank of Executive Engineer and above, had been delegated to the Chairman of the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 3(17) (ii) of the Act. Therefore, the delegation of powers made in favour of the Chief Administrator by the earlier resolution dated 18th Nov., 1986, stood superseded by the subsequent resolution dated 26th Dec., 1991.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, though the entire factual position has been admitted, yet attempt has been made to justify the impugned action on the ground that the resolution of the Board dated 26th Dec., 1991, could not be acted upon as the Chief Administrator of the Board was not present in the meeting of the Board, and it was for that reason the State Government had asked the Board on 26th Feb., 1992 (Annexure R-l), to maintain status quo ante.