RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer (for short 'ACEO') has been assailed in this petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 2 as ACEO and also for directing respondent No. 1 to promote him as Election Tehsildar from 1.12.1989 and as ACEO with effect from 1.11.1990 and also to consider him for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Electoral Officer with effect from 15.7.1991.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the writ petition, it is necessary to take notice of some of the facts. The petitioner joined service as Election Naib Tehsildar on 7.3.1973. He was promoted as Election Tehsildar on 6.8.1991 and then as ACEO vide order dated 4.3.1992. Respondent No. 2, who was holding the post of Superintendent in the office of the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana was also promoted as ACEO by the same very order by which the petitioner was promoted as ACEO. The petitioner made representation to the respondents for his retrospective promotion to the posts of Election Tehsildar and ACEO on the ground that the post of Election Tehsildar became available on 24.4.1990 and that of ACEO on 1.11.1990 and he was the only person who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for promotion to these posts as on 24.4.1990 and as on 1.11.1990. He also represented for nullification of the promotion of respondent No. 2 on the post of ACEO by stating that the said respondent did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility for promotion as on 4.3.1992. Having failed to persuade the departmental authorities to pass order in his favour, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 has defended the impugned order by stating that two posts of ACEO were available with the Government and the respondent No. 2 was treated eligible to be promoted as ACEO because he was holding the post of Superintendent. It has been pleaded by the respondent No. 1 that the experience of respondent No. 2 fell short by two months which was relaxed in order to promote him as ACEO. Respondent No. 1 has also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 is senior to the petitioner because the said respondent was promoted as Superintendent with effect from 26.1.1991 whereas the petitioner came to occupy the post of Election Tehsildar on 6.8.1991. A few more facts:-