M R GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although in the writ petition the petitioner has made several prayers including a prayer to strike down Rules 2(12), 3 and 5 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as '1960 Rules') and for issue of mandamus to the respondents to promote him as Executive Engineer with retrospective effect, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments in regard to the prayer to quash Annexure P.3 dated 16.1.1975 issued by the Governor of Haryana in the purported exercise of his powers under proviso to Rule 9(3) of '1960 Rules' for retrospective promotion of respondent No. 3.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 30th June, 1965 on the basis of his appointment under the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-II Public Works Department (B&R) Rules, 1965. He was promoted as officiating Executive Engineer on 27.5.1971. He was declared suitable for grant of senior scale under '1960 Rules ' w.e.f. 1.10.1973. This decision was taken by the Government in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission. Respondent No. 3 joined service as Assistant Executive Engineer on 30th August, 1971. He was placed on probation for a period of two years vide Annexure P.3. Respondent No. 3 has been treated as promoted on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.9.1973 in the scale of 750-1300 by order Annexure P.3 issued under proviso to Rule 9(3) of '1960 Rules'. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of arbitrariness, mala fide and non-application of mind. Grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of the impugned order respondent No. 3 has been placed above him in the seniority list of Executive Engineers and on that basis has been given promotion to the higher post earlier than him.

(3.) The respondents have resisted that writ petition by filing separate written statements. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as respondent No. 3 have raised an objection of delay and laches by stating that the writ petition has been filed after 8 years of issue of the impugned order and there is no explanation for this long delay. On merits the respondents claimed that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after proper application of mind to the service record of the respondent No. 3 and keeping in view the requirement of public interest.