NANDPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nandpal Singh, Social Studies Master in Government High School, Misri, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of Lecturer in Geography from the date he became eligible for consideration for promotion to the aforesaid post. The petitioner claimed promotion from the date when respondent Nos. 3 and 6 were promoted as such. The petitioner joined as Master in 1983. He is MA. Geography and M.Ed. In 1985 a scheme was introduced known as '10 + 2 scheme' and thus, posts of lecturers in the Senior Secondary School fell vacant. During the period 1987 to 1991, the private respondents were promoted as Lecturer in Geography as and when the posts fell vacant. The claim of the petitioner is that these respondents were not eligible for promotion on such dates as they were not possessing the minimum educational qualifications of MA. in Geography, whereas the petitioner was possessing such qualification and his name should have been considered and he should have been promoted.

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed by the official respondents. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the promotion of such of the respondents, which was effected during the period 1987 to 1991, cannot be challenged in the present writ petition, which was filed on March 31, 1992. There is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court for which there is no justification much less cogent.

(3.) It is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents were senior to the petitioner even at the time they were promoted. The point now stressed is that some of these respondents have acquired the minimum educational qualification of M.A. in Geography much after the petitioner acquired it. Be that as it may, since such respondents have acquired it. Be that as it may, since such respondents have acquired educational qualifications for the post for which they were promoted long time back, it would not be appropriate to upset their promotion. The last one promoted was respondent No. 4 on Feb. 1, 1991, whose promotion is also being challenged. It has not been shown that on Feb. 1, 1991 respondent No. 4 was not possessing the requisite qualification, otherwise, it is stated that he was senior to the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was also eligible for promotion, as he was possessing the minimum educational qualifications, his name should have been considered along with others on Feb. 1, 1991, when respondent No. 4 was promoted. This contention cannot be accepted. 'The criteria for promotion' as stated in the written statement filed by the official respondents is 'seniority-cum-merit'. If a person senior to the petitioner was possessing the requisite educational qualifications, there was no reason to deny promotion to him. The rule that all eligible persons should be considered at the time of promotion, is applicable only when selection at the time of promotion is applicable only when selection is to be made on merit and not on the basis of seniority. But this is not the case in hand. When the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' is to be applied, it is to be seen as to whether senior most person is available and if he possesses the requisite qualifications and there is nothing against him to promote him, in such circumstances, promotion cannot be denied to him. Other persons, who are juniors, cannot claim consideration of their names as against the said person. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Deva Ram Bajaj Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) RSJ 572. In that case the question for consideration was with regard to the persons whose names were to be considered at the relevant time of promotion to the post of Assistant. The relevant time was when such post became available or persons became eligible. If eligible person was available he was to be considered. The criteria for promotion whether 'seniority-cum-merit' or 'merit-cum-seniority' was not under consideration in that case. Thus, ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand. In this context further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 1980, when posts were available and only the petitioner was eligible, the case of promotion should have been considered and thus the petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted. This contention cannot be accepted. There cannot be deemed promotion. Promotion in the service cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The only right which a person in service is entitled to claim is right to be considered for promotion. Even if a promotional post falls vacant, it is the prerogative of the state to fill the post or not. It is only when the state decides to fill such a post that the names of the persons eligible would be considered for promotion. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.