RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of seniority list filed with the petition as annexure P-1, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion as Clerk from the date respondent No.4 who was admittedly junior to him was promoted as Clerk.

(2.) In their reply, the respondents have justified the action of promotion of respondent No.4, on the basis of Court order passed in CWP No.2905 of 1992 decided on 9.11.1992. In that case respondent No.4 had prayed for issuance of appropriate directions for his promotion and the Court disposed of his writ petition by holding:-

(3.) A perusal of the judgment would clearly shc* ^at a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the writ-petitioner in that case for promotion to the post of Clerk against the promotion quota w.e.f. the date the post in the promotion quota fell due. Such direction envisaged the consideration of the case of the petitioner in accordance with the service rules and the provisions of law which impliedly meant the consideration of his case along with persons who were senior to him. No direction was issued by the Court for promoting the respondent No.4 ignoring the claim of other persons who were shown senior to him in the seniority list annexure P-l. It is true that the annexure P-l is the tentative seniority list but facts stated in it cannot be denied which showed that the private-respondent was appointed as Peon on 25.4.1978, admittedly after the petitioners were appointed to the aforesaid post. In view of the judgment annexure P-5, the respondents were under legal obligation to consider the case of the petitioners and others, if any, who were senior to private-respondent No.4 for promotion to the post of Clerks. Non- consideration of such case has taken away valuable right conferred upon the petitioners. The petitioners have however not prayed for setting aside the order of promotion of respondent No.4, and have prayed for only consideration of then- cases from the date the aforesaid respondents were promoted upon existence of vacancy of clerk within its ambit.