MOHD YUNUS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider their names for inclusion in List 'E' w.e.f. January 1,1986 when the name of a person junior to them, respondent No. 4 was included. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents the action in not considering the names of the petitioners for inclusion in list 'E' is sought to be justified on the ground that respondent No. 4 had undergone the Intermediate School Course in the terms ending March 1983 whereas the petitioners had qualified the Course in the term ending March, 1987, To meet the situation the petitioners filed a replication. Along with that they have produced an order dated December 7,1989 to show that the DIG, H A.P., Madhuban had accepted the representation of Officiating Assistant Sub Inspector, Sh Prem Chand on the ground that Sub Inspector Sh. Jagdish Rai who was junior to him in the Gradation List, had been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector, earlier than him. A perusal of the order dated December 7,1989 shows that Sub Inspector Jagdish Rai was admitted to List 'C' in the month of September, 1975 whereas Mr. Prem Chand had been admitted to that list w.ei. April 1,1975. On this premises, it was held that Sh. Prem Chand had a right to be deputed for the Intermediate School Course prior to the date on which Sh. Jagdish Rai had been sent. It was further observed that a Head Constable on a deputation maintains his seniority in his parent department and his position cannot improve on account of passing a course. Accordingly, Sh. Prem Chand's claim was accepted and his name was brought on List 'D' w.ei. May 5,1983 instead of April 20, 1987 when it had been actually included in the list. Similarly, his name was included in List 'E' w.ei. January 1,1986 and his date of promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector was changed from May 22,1987 to May 13,1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector w.ei. January 7,1986.

(2.) The petitioners claim that in the seniority list their names appear immediately below that of Sh. Prem Chand and above that of Sh. Jagdish Rai. It is further pointed out that the names of petitioners were included in List 'C' w.ei. the same date as that of Sh. Prem Chand and much earlier than that of Sh. Jagdish Rai. In this situation, it is claimed that they are in the same position as Sh. Prem Chand, vis-a-vis respondent No. 4. This position is not disputed by Mr. Jaswant Singh appearing for the respondents. It is, however, contended that a number of representations have been received against the order dated December 7,1989. As a result, it is claimed that even the relief granted to Prem Chand is under threat and no relief can be given to the petitioners till the matter is finally decided.

(3.) Vide my order dated January 10, 1992, I had directed the learned counsel to produce the representations which were stated to be under consideration. These representations have been produced. These appear to have been submitted in the year 1990. They appear to have been received in the office of the Inspector General, Haryana Armed Police, in or about March'1991. Considerable time has elapsed since then. No order has yet been passed. Further a perusal of the representations shows that none of the representationists has prayed for the setting aside of the order passed in favour of Sh. Prem Chand or Sh, Jagdish Rai. The basic claim made is that the representationists should be given the same relief as has been given to Sh. Prem Chand, Mr. Jaswant Singh states that according to the respondents the benefit given to Sh. Prem Chand is likely to be withdrawn. There is nothing on record to support this suggestion. In view of the fact that the representations were submitted in December 1989 or soon thereafter, no notice whatsoever has been issued to Sh. Prem Chand for the withdrawal of benefit already conferred on him. It is not understood as to on what basis the learned counsel states that the benefit given to Sh. Prem Chand is likely to be withdrawn. In fact, not even a prima facie case for the withdrawal of benefit from Sh. Prem Chand has been made out Sh, Jagdish Rai, who was admittedly junior to Sh. Prem Chand having been given certain benefits, it is not understood as to how the benefit of seniority etc. given to Sh. Prem Chand can be withdrawn by the department. Nothing has been pointed out to show as to how the Department was justified in sending Shri Jagdish Rai for the Intermediate School Course prior to the petitioners. Mr. Jaswant Singh made a faint attempt to suggest that the action was permissible under Rule 19.22. Under this rule, the Principal of the Police Training College, Madhuban may be competent to depute Drill instructors etc. for the course. However, such out of turn deputation for the course cannot confer any benefit of inclusion in the promotion list or actual promotion out of turn. Further more, it has not even been shown that Sh. Jagdish Rai was posted as a Drill Instructor at the Police Training College, Madhuban at the relevant time. In this situation, the order passed by the P.I.G. granting certain benefits to Sh. Prem Chand seems to be in accordance with the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. No infirmity in the order has been brought to my notice at the time of hearing.