RAJ PATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Raj Pati, Supervisor, in the office of the Child Development & Project Officer, Uchana, District Jind, it appears, justifiably stakes claim to the next rank i.e. Child Development & Project Officer. Concededly, she is senior to those who have been promoted on April 24, 1991 on the post under contention. The controversy, however, veers around the service records of the petitioner. Obviously, therefore, if the record does not justify her promotion to the next higher rank, respondents i.e. State of Haryana and the Director, Social Welfare Department, Haryana, cannot be faulted for not promoting the petitioner to the post of Child Development & Project Officer (for short CDPO), failing which the petitioner shall deserve the relief asked for by her through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer, to be precise, is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the adverse remarks contained in Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1986-87 and 1989-90 conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 as also order dated September 30, 1986 whereby representation of the petitioner against the then Child Development & Project Officer, who was her Reporting Officer, was rejected. Further, the prayer of the petitioner is to consider and promote her to the post, referred to above. The reliefs mentioned in detail above are sought to rest on the facts, brief mention whereof becomes necessary.

(2.) Petitioner, who possesses educational qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed. and M.A. in Sociology, was initially appointed as Supervisor in the respondent- department on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. August 24, 1981. Her services were, however, regularised w.e.f. November 1, 1986 under the Government policy, then in existence. In the seniority list of Supervisors, as it stood on September 1, 1989, her name was at Sr. No. 46. Extract of the seniority list annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, reveals that Parveen, Renu Bala, Usha Kiran, Nirmal Grover, Dinesh Yadav and Bir Mati are below the petitioner in seniority, being at Sr Nos. 47 to 52. The juniors of the petitioner, named above, have been promoted on April 24, 1991 or thereafter. Grouse of the petitioner is that even though she fulfilled all the qualifications and was senior to Parveen etc., mentioned above, as clearly made out from the seniority list, Annexure P-1, she was ignored. When she came to know about promotion of her juniors, she filed a representation on April 30, 1991. She pointed out in her representation that her service record was satisfactory right from 1981 as no adverse remarks were ever conveyed to her. However, with a view to justify supersession of the petitioner and promotion of her juniors, Deputy Director (Admn.) in the office of respondent No. 2, conveyed the adverse reports to the petitioner vide letter dated May 7, 1991. She was informed that her reports for the years 1986-87 and 1989-90 were average and that even her honesty for the year 1986-87 was averge. The positive case of the petitioner is that these two reports, Annexures P-3 and P-4, were fabricated after her juniors had already been promoted and the same were conveyed to her at a belated stage simply with a view to protect promotion order of her juniors. She, therefore, represented against the reports, Annexures P-3 and P-4 and claimed promotion on the post of C.D.P.O. Her representations succeeded only half-way-through as average remarks regarding her honesty in the report for the year 1986-87 were expunged. It was further said that since 70% service record of the petitioner was not either good or above, she was not entitled to be promoted. It is further the case of the petitioner that her confidential report for the year 1986-87 was deliberately spoiled by the then C.D.P.O. on account of personal vendetta as she refused to become party to malpractices of the said officer. Under various social welfare schemes, large scale material, like food items etc., were received by the C.D.P.O. and were further distributed amongst Anganwari workers through Supervisors. The then C.D.P.O. asked her to sign the stock register even without verifying as to whether the quantity of the material had actually been received by the concerned Anganwari Workers or not. She was being asked to sign the stock register even without verifying the quality of the food items. She, therefore, refused to sign the stock register. The then C.D.P.O. not only made false and frivolous adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner but she also made a reference against the petitioner to respondent No. 2. By entertaining the said reference, respondent No. 2 vide memo dated June 26, 1986 called for the explanation of the petitioner, who, on receipt of the memo, referred to above, replied in detail on July 22, 1986 pointing out malpractices of the then C.D.P.O. She also requested to hold an enquiry in the matter. On receipt of the reply of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 held an enquiry through Deputy Director (Admn.). The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid Inquiry Officer found the petitioner upright in his report dated September 23, 1986. Consequently, respondent No. 2, vide order dated September 30, 1986, informed the petitioner that she should sign the stock register after verifying the receipts taken from the Anganwari workers and in case she finds any lacuna, she should make a written complaint. It is further the case of the petitioner that once her representation was accepted and the remarks with regard to her average honesty were expunged, there was absolutely no justification to treat her report for the year 1986-87 as average.

(3.) The cause of the petitioner has been opposed but in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the respondents the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis juniors to her, who have been promoted on April 24, 1991, has not been denied. The cause of petitioner has, however, been endeavoured to be opposed on the ground that for earning promotion, petitioner ought to have had 70% good reports and inasmuch as her record did not warrant her promotion, juniors to her were rightly considered and promoted to the post under contention.