PARVESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Haryana Government passed under Sections 114 and 115 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act , dated March 11, 1986, Annexure P-4, whereby the order of the Additional Registrar Credit, Co-operative Societies, Haryana dated September 6, 1985, quashing the promotion orders dated February 23, 1985, passed by the respondent-Bank promoting the petitioner Parvesh Kumar to the post of Clerk was maintained.

(2.) Parvesh Kumar, petitioner, being the seniormost peon amongst the Record-keepers, and the peons, as per the tentative joint seniority list, was promoted as a Clerk against a vacant post having become available due to the resignation tendered by Atma Ram, Clerk, vide copy of the order Annexure P-2. The said order was challenged by Banta Singh, Narinder Kumar and Harsh Bharti, the record-keepers under Section 102 of the aforesaid Act, by filing a petition thereunder before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. According to them, the promotion of Parvesh Kumar to the post of Clerk was illegal, void and against the rules. That contention prevailed with the Additional Registrar. He came to the conclusion that post of peon could not be treated as equivalent to the post of record-keeper. Thus, Rule 8.5 of the Haryana State Co-operative Bank Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1976, was bad and against the principles of natural justice. He further found that there was no valid seniority list prepared because it was never circulated, nor any objections were invited from the affected parties. Consequently, the promotion order dated February 23, 1985, passed by the respondent-Bank promoting the petitioner to the post of Clerk was quashed. At the same time, the respondent-Bank was also directed to prepare a joint seniority list treating the record-keepers as seniors to the peons and to promote the eligible and seniormost record-keeper to the post of Clerk. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 114 of above said Act and the order was maintained vide order dated March 11, 1986, copy, Annexure P-4.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no such petition under Section 102 of the aforementioned Act was maintainable before the Additional Registrar in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Rohtak, 1986 3 SLR 255. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the said orders are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, on behalf of the respondents it was submitted that no such objection as to jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar under Section 102 was taken by the petitioner; rather he himself approached the Additional Registrar and, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to agitate that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. In support of the contention reliance was placed on Sohan Singh v. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, 1981 3 SLR 342.