LAWS(P&H)-1997-11-127

SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On November 04, 1997
SURESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a clerk in the Municipal Committee, Narwana, on August 5, 1993. This appointment was given to him on compassionate grounds as his father had died while serving the respondent Committee. Some time later, on March 24, 1994, respondent No. 4 was also apointed as a Clerk. On August 19, 1996, respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Octroi Inspector. Aggrieved by this order of promotion of respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed a representation. His case was recommended but no relief having been granted to him, he has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner prays for the issue of a direction to promote him as an Inspector with effect from August 16, 1996.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana and others by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind. It has been inter alia averred that respondent No. 4 had been apointed as a Clerk vide order dated March 22, 1994. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure R-1 with the wirtten statement. In this order, it has been inter alia observed that in case the fourth respondent completed one year of service satisfactorily, he "will be promoted to the post of Octroi Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040". On this basis, the respondents seek to justify the order of promotion passed in favour of respondent No. 4.

(3.) Admittedly, the fourth respondent had joined service about six months after the petitioner. Consequently, in the cadre of Clerks, he was junior to him. Still further, it is also not disputed that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent were granted initial appointment in the cadre of Clerks on compassionate grounds. That being so, both were similarly situated. In this situation, no ground for according any preferential treatment to respondent No. 4 was made out. Even otherwise, these appointments on compassionate grounds were given to ensure that the family is able to tide over the financial crisis. The father of respondent No. 4 was admittedly working as a Clerk. On his death, the fourth respondent was also given appointment as a Clerk. Nothing more could have been or should have been given to him. The action of the respondents in making a stipulation in the order dated March 22, 1994, that respondent No. 4 shall be entitled to promotion on satisfactory completion of one year service as a Clerk was wholly unwarranted. In any event, the person senior to respondent No. 4 had a prior right. Admittedly, the claims of neither the petitioner nor that of the other persons senior to him were considered at the time respondent No. 4 was promoted. In this situation, it is apparent that the order by which respondent No. 4 was promoted had been violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R-2 with the written statement, is quashed.