ASHOK KUMAR, CLERK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 joined service in the office of the Director Industries, Haryana, on 16.1.1976, 6.4.1976 and 7.6.1976 respectively. Initially their appointments were ad hoc, but they continued to be in service without any break and were ultimately regularised with effect from 1.1.1980. Later on petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Steno-Typist on his qualifying the requisite test. Vide order dated 30.12.1982 (Annexure P-3), six persons including respondent No. 3 were provisionally promoted as Block Level Extension Officers (Ind.). Their promotions were regularised w.e.f. 25.8.1983 vide office order placed at Annexure P-12.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the fact that as per the policy decision of the respondent-department 50% of the vacancies for the post of Block Level Extension Officer were to be filled by promotion from amongst the Graduate Clerks/Steno Typists/Junior Scale Stenographers of the field offices and of the Headquarters, who possessed atleast six years experience, the petitioners were not considered for promotion. Since respondent No. 3 was appointed against this quota, the orders of promotion (Annexures P-3 and P-12) have been challenged qua his promotion only.

(3.) On notice of motion, written statement has been filed and the stand taken by the official respondents is that the petitioners could not be promoted as they did not possess the requisite experience of six years since their services were regularised with effect from 1.1.1980. In other words, according to the respondents, the petitioners should have had six years experience in regular service.