MOOL CHAND CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve challenge to the promotions/posting orders dated 13.12.1979, 25.1.1984 and 10.2.1984 issued by the Government of Haryana, promoting the private respondents as Sub Divisional Officers/Sub Divisional Engineers.

(2.) Petitioner, Mool Chand Chaudhary (CWP no.1112/84) joined service as Sectional Officer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Haryana after he had passed Diploma in Civil Engineering. During the course of service, he passed A.M.I.E. in August, 1980. He has challenged the promotions of respondents No.3 to 5 on the ground that they do not fulfil the conditions of eligibility incorporated in Rule 7 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class-II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Rules'). According to the petitioner these respondents have passed Diploma in Production Engineering which does not find mention in Appendix 'B' attached with '1970 Rules' and, therefore, they were ineligible to be promoted as Sub Divisional Officers even on adhoc basis. Promotion of respondent No.6 has been challenged on the ground that he was ineligible to be promoted against source- IV of Rule 6 of '1970 Rules'. By placing reliance on the order dated 3.10.1983 passed in CWP No.5630 of 1981, Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs. State of Haryana, it has been pleaded that promotion of respondent No.6 was found to be unjustified by the High Court but he has been again promoted on regular basis by order dated 15.1.1984.

(3.) Petitioners, C.S. Tayal and Mahabir Sharma (CWP No.1455/84) have questioned the legality of promotion of private respondents on similar grounds by urging that these respondents were not qualified to be considered for promotion In CWP No. 1738/85 and CWP No.2552/85, the petitioners have questioned the promotion of respondents No.2 to 8 on the ground that the examination passed by these respondents from the Mechanical Engineers Association (India) is not one of the qualifications enumerated in Appendix 'B'' and it cannot be treated as equivalent to A.M.I.E.