SHRI R.N. AHUJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the service of Haryana, Irrigation Department, has filed the writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer. The petitioner claimed that he was due for promotion on 8.5.1986, 19.6.1986 and 12.8.1986, when the officers junior to him were promoted as Superintending Engineer but he was ignored for promotion illegally and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has stated that vide order Annexure P. 2. the Haryana Government approved the names of the following Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer :

(2.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of the Haryana State by Shri D.R. Naryar, Under Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department. It is admitted in the writ petition that the officers junior to the petitioner have been promoted. It is admitted that at the time when the persons junior to the petitioners were promoted, a vacancy was reserved for him due to the disciplinary proceedings against him. It is further averred in the written statement that in the departmental proceedings the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments. The submission of representation by the petitioner has been admitted for the redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has filed replication dated 20.5.1987 in reply to the written statement.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at considerable length. Secretary to Government. Haryana, Irrigation & Power Department, was called vide my order dated 5th Oct., 1989, to explain why the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. He was also asked to produce the A.C. Rs. of the petitioner. It is admitted case that during the last ten years, no adverse report was conveyed to the petitioner. Any adverse report which had not been conveyed to the Government servant cannot be relied upon the deprive him of his promotion (See judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1979 S C. 1622 . Moreover, it has been ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Vaid Vs. State of Haryana, S.L.R. 1990 (1) 1 that average report cannot be considered adverse. Thus, a Government servant cannot be denied promotion merely because he has earned average report. The A.C. Rs. file does not contain any report which has been conveyed to the petitioner, in this view of the matter, there was no justification on the part of the respondent to deprive the petitioner of his right of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner has been treated arbitrarily and in an unreasonable manner and thus discriminated which is in contravention of the provisions of Art. i4 of the Constitution of India.