PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Failure of the competent authority to discharge its duty in accordance with the provisions of law is the sole reason which has compelled the petitioners to move this Court for issue of a writ to quash the order Annexure P-2. dated 27.9.1995 and to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Head Clerk.

(2.) Petitioners as well as the respondent No. 1 are employees of the Municipal Council, Hisar. Till the date of the issue of the impugned order, all of them were working as Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the service of the Municipal Council, Hisar. None of the petitioners has earned any adverse report or punishment during the course of service. In the tentative seniority-list (as on 30.9.1994) of the Clerks, serving in the Municipal Council, Hisar, names of the petitioners appear at serial Nos. 6, 21, 29, 34, 37, 39, 43, 42, and 45 respectively. Name of the respondent No. 4 appears at serial No. 47 in the same very list. The petitioners have alleged that ignoring their seniority, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 27.9.1995 and promoted the respondent No. 4 as Head Clerk on ad hoc basis with a condition that if any employee is found senior to him, he (respondent No. 4) will be reverted and in this manner the respondent No. 2 has acted in violation of the service rules as well as the equality clause contained in the Constitution.

(3.) Three separate written statements have been filed by the respondents. In their written statement, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that promotion to the post of Head Clerk is to be made on the basis of seniority- cum-merit as per Rule 10 of the Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982, and for this purpose a joint seniority-list of all the employees working on different Clerical posts in the entire district is required to be prepared. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 had issued letters to all the Municipal Councils/Committees to send particulars of all the employees in order to facilitate the preparation of the seniority-list. The respondents have also pleaded that regular promotion will be made according to the district-wise seniority and with a view to make stop-gap arrangement, the respondent No. 4, who has earned very good/outstanding reports, has been promoted. In its reply, the respondent No. 3 has also pleaded that the post of Head Clerk is at district level and all the Clerks are entitled to be considered for promotion. Respondent No. 3 has pleaded that on an application submitted by the respondent No. 4 for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, the Municipal Committee transmitted the service record and Annual Confidential Reports of the respondent No. 4 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, who passed the impugned order. Respondent No. 3 has further stated that many persons senior to the petitioners are available in the cadre of clerks and they are also entitled to be promoted on the higher post. In a separate reply, respondent No. 4 has raised an additional plea that in the past also ad hoc promotion had been accorded to the post of Head Clerk and after considering his merit, the respondent No. 2 was fully justified in issuing the order (Annexure P-3).