MANOHAR LAL SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PANCHKULA Vs. THE HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other suitable writ, order or direction for quashing the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Administrative Officer in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA') respondent No. 1. The petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade-I since November 1970. It is stated that he has been discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and diligently. One post of Administrative Officer was created in HUDA and it was decided that the said post would be filled up by promotion. It was further provided that the qualifications for the said post were to be five years experience as Superintendent Grade-I or seven years experience as Superintendent Grade-II/Head Clerk. No statutory rules were applicable at the time when the post become vacant. However, HUDA decided to adopt the Government instruction from time to time to fill up the said post of Administrative Officer. HUDA adopted the instructions of the Haryana Government dated 9.5.1985 (Annexure P-1) for filling up the aforesaid post. The case of the petitioner is that even though he possessed the necessary qualification and also fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion, but he was not promoted to the said post and instead a person junior to him i.e. respondent No. 3 was promoted. The petitioner has thus assailed the said promotion.

(2.) A written statement has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. However, no written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3. In the written statement filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, the stand that has been taken, is that the competent authority to take a decision for the promotion to the post of Administrative Officer is the Personnal Committee of HUDA. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered keeping in view the instructions (Annexure P-1) and also the instructions on the subject issued by the State Government from time to time. A gist of the last three Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner as also of respondent No. 3 has also given in the written statement. However, it is the stand of the respondent-authorities that the petitioner was not considered fit for promotion on a senior post of Administrative Officer on the basis of criteria of seniority-cum-merit and his Annual Confidential Reports.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that admittedly, as per the stand of the respondent-authorities dated 9.5.1985 (Annexure P-1), the criteria that has been adopted is that of seniority-cum-merit. He has made a pointed reference to para 2 of the instructions dated 9.5.1985 (Annexure P-1) which reads as follows :