DHARAM PAUL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts leading to this writ petition may be briefly stated as under :-

(2.) The petitioner joined the service as Clerk with the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on November 18, 1955. He was promoted as Assistant on November 13, 1961, and was confirmed thereafter. He was then promoted as Assistant Superintendent on October 9, 1969, and was later confirmed in the said post with effect from the said date and had been working as such since then. There was one post of Superintendent in the office of the Board.

(3.) Shri Munshi Ram has filed, in opposition, his affidavit by way of return. The broad facts were not disputed. It was, however, pleaded that the petition was not maintainable because of statement of certain false facts therein; that the post of Section Officer (Administration) and that Lal Chand possessed the necessary qualifications and he had been validly appointed to the said post. The claim of the petitioner that his record of service had been outstanding or that his case while appointing Lal Chand to the post of Section Officer (Administration) was not considered was refuted. The facts that an ex-cadre post of section grade or Section Officer (Administration) was not considered was refuted. The facts that an ex-cadre post of Section grade or Section Officer (Administration) in the scale of Rs. 500-30-650/30-800-50-850 and in the rank of Superintendent A Class Government Office was created on September 30, 1974, and Lal Chand was appointed to the said post for one year with effect from November 26, 1974, that at the relevant time he (Lal Chand) was holding the substantive post of Assistant in the office of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and was working on deputation as Assistant with the Board, are not disputed. The further facts that the office of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, was A-Class Office and Lal Chand had been working as Assistant in the said office for more than ten years and the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent in the office of the Board and there were two other Assistant Superintendents, viz., Sarvshri B.D. Gupta and Kali Ram Singla, working in the Board and Shri B.D. Gupta was senior to the petitioner, are also not disputed. It was represented by Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the deputation of Lal Chand to the service of the Board was extended for the second time upto October, 1975, and the said representation was not controverted on behalf of the petitioner.