JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Peon at Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Kanina Mandi, District Mohindergarh. He was appointed as a Peon in the respondent Department on 22.9.1989 on regular basis. He passed his matriculation on 5.7.1993 and thus, became eligible for promotion as Lab Attendant or Clerk. The minimum prescribed qualification for the said post is Matriculation with Science subjects. The District Education Officer, Narnaul (respondent No. 3), vide order dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure P-1) promoted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Lab Attendants on the basis of the seniority list as it stood on 1.1.1997. The said promotion, however, was for a stipulated period. The case of the petitioner had also been sought for promotion but he was not promoted. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 25.3.1999 (Annexure P-2). It was represented by the petitioner that he was senior to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were promoted vide order dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure P-1). There being inaction on the representation, the petitioner, alongwith other five employees, filed C.W.P. No. 11340 of 1999 in this Court, which was disposed of on 16.8.1999 (Annexure P-3) with the direction to Director of Secondary Education, Haryana (respondent No. 2) to consider and decide the legal notice within a period of three months of the receipt of copy of the order. In consequence of the order passed by this Court, the legal notice of the petitioner and others was rejected by the District Education Officer, Narnaul (respondent No. 3) on 6.10.1999 (Annexure P-4) by observing that the seniority of the selected candidates was to be determined from the date of passing the matriculation examination and not from the date of appointment. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure P-1) promoting the respondent Nos. 4 to 5 to the post of Lab Attendant and the rejection order dated 6.10.1999 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Education Officer, Narnaul (respondent No. 3) declining the claim of the petitioner for promotion of Lab Attendant, are impugned. Besides, a direction is sought to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 28.4.1997 i.e. the date his juniors respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted with all consequential benefits. A further direction is sought to decide the seniority of Class-IV employees on the basis of length of service and not on the basis of date of passing the matriculation examination as held by this Court in Bhiwani Parshad v. State of Haryana and others,2000 2 SCT 74.

(2.) On notice of motion, written statement has been filed by Shri Sajjan Singh, H.E.S.-I, District Education Officer, Narnaul, on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3. It is stated that as per the Government of Haryana, Department of Education instructions dated 21.10.1987 (Annexure R-1), the seniority of Class-IV employees for promotion to the post of Laboratory Attendant was to be determined from the date of passing the matriculation examination with the subjects General Science/Physics, Chemistry, Life Science or from the date of entry into Govt. service, whichever is later. It is stated that the Class-IV employees who were promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant, vide order dated 28.4.1997, were senior to the petitioner.

(3.) In the separate written statement filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it is stated that they were promoted as Laboratory Attendants vide order dated 28.4.1997. However, in the year 1998, the post of Laboratory Attendant has been declared as Class-III post from that of Class-IV. Besides, vide order dated 18.3.1999 (Annexure R-5/1), it has been decided that promotion shall be made at the Directorate level. It is stated that this means that all Class-IV employees working in the State of Haryana become eligible for consideration and promotion which is to be made at the State level. It is also stated that further promotions were made thereafter and one such promotion order dated 28.8.2001 (Annexure R-5/2) has been placed on record. It is also stated that persons junior to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been promoted as Laboratory Attendants. This, it is stated, would show that if respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had not been promoted in the year 1997, then they were entitled to be promoted when their juniors were promoted. Therefore, it is stated that even if the Writ Petition is to be allowed, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not liable to be disturbed and rather, the junior-most persons at the State level are liable to be reverted.