SHADI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Headmaster from the reserved quota of Scheduled Caste with effect from 1.1.1987 instead of 1.4.1989. It has been claimed that the petitioner has become eligible for promotion along with others on 1.1.1987. It has further been prayed that the order dated 25.2.2004 (P-11) passed in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 16544 of 2002, decided on 11.10.2002, be quashed by granting promotion to the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from 1.1.1987. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 25.2.2004 (P-11) by filing C.W.P. No. 12636 of 2004 (P-12), which was dismissed as withdrawn when the Division Bench had pointed out to the petitioner about the position in law. The aforementioned position is evident from reading of the concluding paras of the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 20.8.2004, which reads as under:-

(2.) The petitioner was, however, allowed to file a fresh petition by an order of the Division Bench passed in C.M. No. 17816 of 2004 filed in C.W.P. No. 12636 of 2004 (P-13). As a consequence of the permission granted, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the service record of the petitioner, it is not possible to accept the submission that the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Headmaster with effect from 1.4.1987. As per rules he did not have 70% Good record and, therefore, he was not promoted on 1.4.1987. His case was duly considered and he was passed over. His confidential record of the aforementioned years, as disclosed in the written statement is as under:-

(3.) It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner was placed under suspension as he was caught red handed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police of District Hisar on account of demanding bribe. The criminal case under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him. He remained in judicial custody and was convicted by the Special Court vide order dated 4.6.1991, however, he was later on acquitted by this Court and, therefore, the service record for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 has been considered as having remained absent and under suspension. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the opinion expressed by respondent No. 2 in its order dated 25.2.2004 (P-11), which reads as under:-