LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-253

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. M L NARULA

Decided On January 08, 1998
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
M L NARULA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.L. Narula, respondent was recruited as a Sub Divisional Engineer in December, 1969. He claimed benefit of military service rendered by him. His claim was accepted. His presumptive date of appointment was fixed as June 19, 1965. Having got this benefit he complained that his claim for promotion to the post of (sic) to him were promoted. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2601 of 1987 with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim. Vide order dated November 16, 1987 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the department to consider the officer's claim for promotion to Class I Service. After consideration the respondents found that M.L. Narula was not suitable for promoton. Aggrieved by this action he again approached this Court with a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him as Executive Engineer with effect from the year 1975 when persons junior to him were promoted.

(2.) The State Government contested the claim primarily on the ground that M.L. Narula had not earned 50 per cent good reports. It was found that the officer had 2-1/3 good reports, two average and 2/3 report has not been recorded. It was also pointed out that he had been awarded the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without future effect on account of an irregularity which had been committed by him. On this basis it was declared that he was not suitable for promotion. Resultantly the State maintained that no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge took the view that in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench in case K.K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, 1990 1 SLR 1 the average report could not be considered as "inferior to good.....". Resultantly the writ petition was allowed. The State of Haryana has filed the appeal to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge.