DARYAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as a Process Server in the courts at Sonepat, impugns the promotion of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the post of Naib Nazir.

(2.) It is the admitted position that the petitioner has joined service on Sept. 23,1972. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had been appointed as Process Servers after him. The petitioner is, thus, senior to both the respondents. On this basis, Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No.3 in superseding the petitioner on two occasions when respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted, was wholly illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that even the District Judge affirmed the order of the petitioners supersession illegally. Consequently, the learned counsel prays that the impugned orders be set aside.

(3.) The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has been pointed out that the record of service of the respondents being far better than that of the petitioner, the impugned action is wholly legal and valid. It has also been pointed out that it was on comparison of record of the petitioner and respondent No.4 that the learned District Judge, Sonipat had dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel submits that on the same reasoning, even the promotion of respondent No.5 deserves to be upheld.