DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto declaring respondent No. 5 to be a usurper of the post of Assistant Project Officer, though, the petitioner has also sought issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider and promote him as Assistant Project Officer in District Rural Development Agency, Hisar (hereinafter described as DRDA, Hisar ).

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that petitioner-Darshan Lal, who joined the service of the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited on 21. 5. 1981 as a Junior Accountant was absorbed in the service of DRDA, Hisar in view of the Government's decision to transfer the Training Production Centre of the Corporation to DRDA, Hisar, His plea for ouster of respondent No. 5 from the post of Assistant Project Officer is based on the premise that the appointment of the said respondent is violative of the Haryana State Rural Development Agency Employees Service Rules, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as the 1991 Rules') and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The grounds on which he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 are :- (i) Respondent No. 4 is not competent to make appointment on the post of Assistant Project Officer in the service of the District Rural Development Agency. (ii) Respondent No. 5 is not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Project Officer. (iii) On the date of appointment i. e. 21. 3. 1994, respondent No. 5 was overage.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have opposed the petitioner's prayer to be considered for promotion as Assistant Project Officer by slating that the 1991 Rules do not provide for promotion of Accountant to the post of Assistant Project Officer. They have also averred that the petitioner can not be promoted to the higher post due to adverse entries contained in his ACRs of 1987-88 and 1993-94. As regards the appointment of respondent No. 5, the following statements have been made in paragraphs 12 and 16 (i) and (iii) of the written statement :- "12. The contents of this para admitted to the extent that respondent No. 4 was not competent to appoint respondent No. 5. xx xx xx xx xx 16. Sub-parawise reply is given below : (i) Respondent No. 4 was not competent to make appointment to Class-11 posts. xx xx xx xx xx (iii) Respondent No. 5 does not strictly fulfil the qualifications and experience for the post of APO as per Service Rules, 1991. In a separate written statement, respondent No. 5 has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner by staling that he is no eligible to be appointed as Assistant Project Officer under the 1991 Rules because there is no channel of promotion from the post of Accountant to that of Assistant Project Officer. He has also averred that the petitioner should be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches. Respondent No. 5 has contested the petitioner's challenge to his appointment by stating that DRDA, Hisar had delegated the power to make appointment and promotion against the sanctioned posts to the Chief Executive Officer. He has also relied on the resolution passed by the Governing Body of DRDA, Hisar on 13. 1. 1995 approving the appointments and promotion made by respondent No. 4. He has averred that respondent No. 4 issued the order dated 21. 3. 1994 on the basis of selection made by a committee comprising of Chief Executive Officer-Additional Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 4 ). Accounts Officer and Superintendent from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Hisar. Respondent No. 5 has also defended his eligibility to be appointed as Assistant Project Officer by slating that being a member of Economically Backward Class, he is entitled to age relaxation up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions issued vide circular No. 43/88/11. 3 (Annexure-R-5/4 ). He has also averred that the 1991 Rules cannot be treated as anything more than mere guide-lines because the same have neither been notified nor published in the gazette and violation of such guide-lines cannot be treated as sufficient to invalidate his appointment.