DHARAMVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a Class -IV employee under the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, State of Haryana, has filed the instant writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Clerk with effect from the date his junior i.e. respondent No. 4, Ram Singh was promoted. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Bull Attendant with the respondent -Department on 27.5.1981. It has been pleaded that as per seniority list of Class - IV employees issued by the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department on 19.11.1998, the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 89, whereas the name of private respondent No. 1 was at Serial No. 208. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to order dated 12.1.2004 whereby respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590 w.e.f. 29.6.1998. Learned counsel has further referred to the subsequent order dated 12.8.2008, Annexure P5, whereby in partial modification of the earlier office order dated 12.1.2004, respondent No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1993. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner who was a Matriculate on the date of his initial appointment on the post of Bull Attendant in the year 1981 and subsequently having even passed the 10+2 Examination was vested with a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk with effect from the date a person junior to him i.e. respondent No. 4 had been so promoted. Learned counsel has also adverted to the Haryana Veterinary Headquarters and Field (Group -C) Service Rules, 1999 to contend that in the case of Clerks, 20% quota by way of promotion from amongst Group -D employees has been earmarked. It has further been argued that the petitioner even possessed the requisite academic qualification and experience prescribed under the Rules for the post of Clerk i.e. Matric/Higher Secondary/10+2 (Vocational) and five years' experience as a Group -D employee.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the State on the ground that the petitioner was working in a Field Institution as a Bull Attendant and the nature of duties of his post were different to that of the post of Clerk. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as he did not possess any basic knowledge of Clerical duties. Insofar as the promotion of respondent No. 4, Ram Singh is concerned, a stand has been taken that such promotion was effected only in pursuance to the directions of the Civil Court, Hisar.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to succeed.