JAGRUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-5) vide which his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent in the respondent department w.e.f. 28.3.1986, in compliance of the order dated 29.11.2004 passed in LPA No. 654 of 1996, has been rejected. He further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to objectively consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent from 28.3.1986 alongwith all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, taken from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste category, joined the service in the respondent department on 3.11.1971 as Clerk. He was promoted as an Accountant on 17.12.1976 in view of his consistent good service record and on the basis of promotion criteria of seniority-cum-merit. Attar Singh-respondent no. 4, who also belongs to scheduled caste category, was promoted as an Accountant on 24.12.1979. He, however, was promoted as Deputy Superintendent w.e.f. 28.3.1986 by ignoring the petitioner. The petitioner filed CWP No. 847 of 1987, challenging the said action of the respondent department in ignoring him for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent w.e.f. 1984 and 1986, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 14.2.1996. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 654 of 1996, which was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure P-2). The judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside; promotion of Attar Singh-respondent no. 4 as Deputy Superintendent w.e.f. 28.3.1986 was quashed; and the respondent-department was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superintendent from 28.3.1986 alongwith all consequential benefits. It was further directed that if the petitioner is found suitable then he shall be given retrospective promotion from 28.3.1986 and respondent-Attar Singh shall make room for the petitioner. It was also added that if the petitioner was found unfit for promotion, then the promotion of Attar Singh shall remain undisturbed. Respondent State filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the LPA Bench, which was dismissed on 15.7.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed contempt petition no. 1241 of 2005 and during the pendency of the same the impugned order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the respondents. The Contempt Petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn with permission to challenge the impugned order dated 25.1.2006.

(3.) The respondent State has justified the impugned order on the ground that the Hon'ble LPA Bench vide its judgment dated 29.11.2004, while directing the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f.. 28.3.1986, also observed that if petitioner was not found fit for promotion then the promotion of Attar Singh-respondent no. 4 was not to be disturbed, meaning thereby that while considering his case for promotion on the basis of over all grading of his ACRs for the relevant years, the observations recorded by the reporting officer in the column relating to "Fitness for Promotion" could also be looked into. It is further the case of the respondents that since in the ACRs for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, against the column of "Fitness for Promotion" the remarks were "Needs experience", the petitioner was not considered fit for promotion although his over all assessment/grading for the said three years was recorded as "Good". It is also the case of the respondent-department that the SLP filed by it on 9.5.2005 challenging the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, was disposed of vide order dated 15.7.2005, having been dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel for the respondent department and that now a review petition against the said order dated 15.7.2005 has been filed by the respondent State. The date of filing of review petition, its stage or fate has not been disclosed even at the time of arguments. The summary of ACRs of the petitioner since 1971-72 till 2002-03 including for the relevant 10 years prior to the relevant date i.e. 28.3.1986 has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the written statement.