YOG RAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the memo dated March 13, 1987, issued by the Service Selection Hoard, Haryana.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Peon on September 15, 1967. At the time of his appointment as a Peon, he was a non-matriculate. Respondents Nov 4 to 6 were also appointed as Peons on June 28, 1973, February 18, 1974 and November 18, 1974, respectively. Subsequently, in the year 1982 some vacancies in the category of Clerks had arisen in the office. The posts of Clerks had to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst Class-IV and Class-Ill employees. Under the Punjab Economic and Statistical Organization (State Service Group C) Rules, 1963, twenty per cent of the total posts are reserved, to be filled up by promotion. Under the said Rules, for promotion to the post of Clerk, qualification is matriculation or equivalent examination and five years experience as Class IV or Class III employees in Economic and Statistical Organization, Haryana. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who are juniors to the petitioner are Matriculates. Therefore, they were promoted to the post of Clerk on ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, in the year 1984, the petitioner also acquired the qualification of Matriculation. Therefore, he had been promoted on ad hoc basis on July 5, 1985. The petitioner made representations to the authorities that he being Senior, his case for regular promotion being Senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 be considered. Appointment of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on ad hoc basis does not confer any right on them for appointment on regular basis but the Selection Board in the impugned order accorded approval of appointments of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on regular basis. In these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order according sanction by the Board and also seeking a direction to appoint him as a Clerk on regular basis.

(3.) There is no dispute that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted in the year 1982 on ad-hoc basis but in the written statement it is clearly brought out that vacancies for promotion as 'Clerks' had arisen in 1979 itself, and promotional posts had been filled up in 1982. As the Department has to obtain approval for making regular appointments, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had been appointed on ad-hoc basis as against the vacancies which were to be filled up by promotion. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not qualified at that time to be promoted though he was Senior because by that time he did not acquire the qualification of Matriculation. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted in the year 1982 and the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted because they did fulfil the academic qualifications prescribed under the Rules. While regularizing the services of the promotees, the qualifications have to be looked into on the date when the vacancy for filling up the post by promotion has arisen. According to the respondents, the vacancies for regular promotion as Clerks had arjsen on January 6,1979, February 12, 1980, January 1, 1992, August 3, l992, and August 12, 1982. Therefore, it is necessary for the department to promote such persons who are qualified on the dates when the vacancies had arisen. They cannot appoint a person on ad-hoc basis and keep him on ad-hoc basis for longer period so as to give Chance to the Senior to qualify to make his claim for regular appointment to that post by reverting the ad-hoc appointee. It is the duty of the department to make regular appointments as against the promotional quota on the basis of the qualifications as on the date when the vacancy has arisen. It is clear from the record that the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted when the vacancy had arisen. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make any grievance for the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The regularisation was not done because the Board was not constituted and immediately after the Board was constituted, approval was accorded and the services of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were accordingly regularized. I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of respondents Nos. 4 to 6.