MADALSA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Planning Assistant in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana on 3.5.1973, on ad hoc basis. She continued as such upto 20.12.1978. During the aforesaid period, she was selected as Assistant Town Planner by the Haryana Public Service Commission-respondent No. 4 and appointed as such by letter dated 5.12.1978. She joined as Assistant Town Planner on 21.12.1978. She completed the period of probation on 21.12.1980. The seniority list of the department, as it stood on 1.1.1983 shows that the petitioner is at Sr. No. 31. Some persons junior to the petitioner were promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed CWP No. 6949 of 1990. The writ petition was disposed of on 31.10.1991 with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents. She, therefore, filed a detailed representation claiming the relief she had claimed in the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner submitted a representation claiming promotion on the post of District Town Planner and expunction of adverse remarks recorded in her confidential report for the year 1984-85. She also claimed that she is entitled to cross the efficiency bar with retrospective effect. By order dated 7.8.1992, the aforesaid representation was accepted. The adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Report for the year 1984-85 were expunged. Her overall grading was treated as "good". Respondent No. 3 was directed to send a comprehensive proposal to the Government so that necessary consequential relief could also be given to the petitioner. The proposal for the grant of consequential relief remained pending with the Government for a number of years. In the meantime, a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 11.1.1993. She was, however, acquitted of the charges by the trial Court by judgment dated 18.7.1998. During the pendency of the Criminal trial, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner on 8.8.1997. The petitioner claims that although the enquiry proceedings had been completed, yet the respondents have not taken any action on the same. In the meantime, the petitioner was promoted as District Town Planner by order dated 16.4.1992. However, she was not given promotion w.e.f. 16.4.1990, the date when employees junior to her, were promoted.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner retrospectively, in view of the order dated 7.8.1992. and to consider her case for further promotion on the post of District Town Planner with effect from the date persons junior to her, have been promoted and for the grant of all consequential benefits. The petitioner also claims interest at the rate; of 18% per annum on all the consequential benefits.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a joint written statement. The claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion w.e.f. 2.5.1990 is denied on the ground that she was considered at the time when persons junior to her were promoted, but she was found "unfit" for promotion on the basis of her service record. It is stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requirement of having 70% "good" record for promotion as laid down in the Government Instructions dated 9.5.1985. It is, however, accepted that the adverse remarks for the year 1984-85 have been expunged. But even then she is not eligible as she did not fulfil the minimum requirement of 70% "good" record on 2.5.1990. It is stated that apart from the year 1984-85, the work of the petitioner had been adversely commented upon in the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Therefore, to promote such an Officer would amount to crucifying efficiency. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered in terms of the order dated 7.8.1992 before the proposal could be sent, a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 by letter dated 11.2.1993 not to process the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion and other benefits.