ATAM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners and respondents No.3 to 7 were working in the Family Welfare Wing of Health Department of Haryana State. Petitioner No.1 is stated to have jointed service in September 1963 and was promoted as Family Welfare Extension Educator on 17.10.1970 on ad hoc basis whereas petitioner No.2 had joined service on 24.11.1955 and was promoted as Family Welfare Extension Educator on 1.8.1968 on ad hoc basis. Both the petitioners were regularized on the post on 16.10.1992. However, respondents No.3 to 7, who were juniors, were also working as Family Welfare Extension Educator. They were promoted as District Family Welfare Education Officers on 10.1.1990 and petitioners claim that they were seniors but still they were not considered for promotions. This writ petition is for quashing promotions of respondents No.3 to 7 being juniors and then for promotions of the petitioners on the post of District Family Welfare Education Officers. During the course of arguments, it came out that Inderjit Singh petitioner was senior most whereas respondent No.4 Karan Singh Khasa was next and the petitioner Atam Parkash was further next down and respondents No.3, 5 to 7 were thereafter down inter se as far as petitioners C.W.P.No.3163 of 1993 #2# and respondents No.3 to 7 are concerned. On behalf of the State, reply had been filed in which it was pleaded that since petitioners were not graduates, therefore they were not promoted. It was pleaded that there were some draft rules prepared awaiting the approval of the State Government and the eligibility for the post of District Family Welfare Education Officers was Graduation having five years experience as Family Welfare Extension Educator. It was also pleaded that there were 18 Family Welfare Extension Educators, who were seniors to the petitioners but they being Marticulate only, were not eligible to the post of District Family Welfare Education Officers and therefore were not promoted.

(2.) This written statement is dated 9.7.1993. In the written statement, it was further stated that the draft rules were yet to be approved by Council of Ministers and were to be notified. Still, it is not clear as to whether rules have been notified and have come into force and from which date.

(3.) Promotions of respondents No.3 to 7 had been effected on 10.1.1990. Written statement is dated 9.7.1993. It will show that rules had not come into force even when more than three years from the promotions of respondents No.3 yo 7 had elapsed. It is clear that on the date of promotion of respondents No.3 to 7, there were no rules prescribing that for the post of District Family Welfare Education Officers, one must be Graduate and should have five years service as Family Welfare Extension Educator.