R K CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has since retired from service, prays for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the orders dated April 28, 1980, June 2, 1980, and September 20, 1980, copies of which have been attached as Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-5 with the writ petition. By these orders, various persons who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the posts of Assistant District Industries Officer (ad hoc) and Assistant Director on officiating basis. The ground for challenge is that the petitioner's claim was not considered when respondent No. 3 who was junior to him was promoted as Assistant District Industries Officer w.e.f. June 2, 1976, vide order dated April 28, 1980. It has also been stated that the petitioner's claim for promotion was not considered when respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted as Assistant District Industries Officers vide orders dated September 20, 1980, with effect from January 2, 1979. According to the petitioner, his claim was also not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director when respondent No. 3 was promoted as such w.e.f. June 2, 1980.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner's case was considered for promotion in the year 1971. It was found that his two increments had been stopped with cumulative effect "from February 1970 for wilful absence from duty..." and his conduct was also under enquiry. Consequently, he was overlooked for promotion. The other officials including respondent No. 3 who were found suitable were promoted on ad hoc basis vide order dated June 28, 1971. The promotion of respondent No. 3 had actually become effective from July 19, 1971. Similarly, respondents No. 4 and 5 were promoted on ad hoc basis in the cadre of Assistant District Industries Officer/Development Officer/Industrial Promotion Officers for a period of four months. Subsequently, vide order dated September 20, 1980, their promotions were regularised w.e.f. January 2, 1979. Respondent No. 6 was promoted vide order dated September 20, 1980. Vide order dated May 10, 1983, the petitioner was promoted as officiating Industrial Promotion Officer w.e.f. April 1, 1979. Thereafter, vide order dated January 7, 1984, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant District Industries Officer on ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 19, 1971. Copies of these two orders are on record as Annexures R.III and R.II respectively with the written statement. By another order dated January 7, 1984 (copy at Annexure R.4 with the written statement), the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director w.e.f. April 1, 1983. On these averments, it is stated that there was no violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner's claim for promotion was considered w.e.f. the date the persons junior to him were actually prompted ?