MOHAN BAHADUR SARU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.1.2005 (Annexure P.8) appointing respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Clerk. It has further been prayed that respondent nos. 1 to 3 be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Clerk from the year 1999 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 13.7.1987 in the office of respondent no.2 i.e. Special Secretary -cum- Director, Rural Development, Haryana, SCO 183-185, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh. His work and conduct has been assessed to be good/ very good. He passed matriculation examination from Haryana School Education Board in the year 1998 and became eligible to be considered for promotion under Rule 3,6 of the Haryana State District Rural Development Agency Employees Service Rules, 1991 (for brevity 'the Rules'). According to the rules 80 percent of the posts of Clerks are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 20 percent by promotion from Class "C" and "D" employees. In Schedule "B" it has been made clear that Class IV employee having passed matriculation with Hindi subject and 5 years experience as such is entitled for promotion against 20 percent quota. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all the qualifications and is eligible for promotion. It has further been asserted that there are total five posts of Clerks and three posts are occupied by direct recruits. One of the remaining two posts is required to be filled up by way of promotion on the basis of 20 percent quota and petitioner being senior-most Class IV employee fulfilling the qualifications for promotion has staked his claim to the post of Clerk. He submitted a representation to respondent no.4 i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, DRDA Kurukshetra. His name was recommended and the representation was forwarded to respondent no.2 who is the competent authority. All the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner have also been forwarded by respondent no.4 to respondent no.2. However, for the reasons best known to respondents the case of the petitioner has been kept pending. Eventually, the petitioner filed CWP No. 18245 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to respondent no.4 to take congnizance of the legal notice dated 10.8.2002 sent by the petitioner and finally decide the same by passing a well reasoned speaking order. On 19.1.2005, the legal notice sent by the petitioner has been decided by rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. The operative part of the order passed by respondent no.4 on 19.1.2005 is extracted below for facility of reference:

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent nos. 5 and 6 have no claim to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk nor they could be appointed by way of direct recruitment. In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rules 3.7 and 3.11 of the Rules alongwith the schedule and argued that the rule prohibits appointment of any person to the service unless he is in possession of qualification and experience specified in Column III of Schedule B appended to these rules in case of direct recruitment and those specified in column IV of the aforesaid schedule in case of appointment other than by way of direct recruitment. The quota of 20 percent of promotion from the eligible Class "C" and"D" employees has been prescribed and qualification of matric alongwith knowledge of Hindi upto matric has also been mentioned. The candidate is also required to have five years experience of service in DRDA.