CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13832 of 2005 Date of Decision: March 28, 2008 Subhash Chander .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Shir V.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2000 (Annexure P.10), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted from the post of Superintendent to that of Assistant. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Regional Centre of the then Punjab Agriculture University, Hisar on 8.8.1969. Later on, the Haryana Agriculture University was created in the year 1970 and the petitioner became employee of Shri Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant in the year 1975. Subsequently, the cadre of Accountant and Assistant was merged CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (2) and, therefore, the petitioner became an Assistant. The promotion from the post of Assistant is to the post of Superintendent. 75% of the posts are to be filled from amongst of Assistants on seniority-cum-merit basis, whereas the remaining 25% of the posts are to be filled on the basis of the Departmental Examination known as Higher Standard Examination. The petitioner cleared the Higher Standard Examination, but could not be promoted due to lack of sanctioned post. The University introduced a system of promotion on the ratio system somewhere in the year 1992. Under the said system, 1/4th of the total Assistants were to be promoted to the post of Superintendent. In the year 1998, the University issued an order promoting 13 Assistants as Superintendents under the ratio system. The assertion of the petitioner is that he was entitled to be placed at serial No. 11 of the said list, but was wrongly ignored. The Association of the Employees has been urging for looking into various promotions made in the University on the basis of the ratio system. The Vice Chancellor formed a committee, which reviewed the promotions made. The Committee recommended the promotion of the petitioner to the post of superintendent with effect from 30.9.1998 i.e. the date when the other similarly situated but juniors to the petitioner were promoted. The said proposal of the Committee was accepted by the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent vide order dated 5.11.1999. Under the subsequent clarification on 15.1.2000, it was clarified that the name of the petitioner shall be at Serial No. 11 of the promotions made earlier on 30.9.1998. CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (3) On 16.11.1998, the State issued a letter to the University recommending that the ratio system of promotion should cease to exist as the pay scale of the University staff has been revised with effect from 1.1.1996. On 14.3.2005, a notice was served upon the petitioner proposing to revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant on the ground that the petitioner has been promoted on 5.11.1999 after the ratio system has ceased to exist after the communication of the State Government dated 16.11.1998. After considering the reply filed and granting personal hearing to the petitioner, an order of reversion of the petitioner on 20.8.2005 has been passed. The said order (AnnexureP.10), is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. It is argued by the petitioner that promotion of the petitioner was approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Board of Management and therefore, the order of reversion could not be passed. Still further, the junior of the petitioner i.e. Respondent No. 4 is still continuing in the promotional post, therefore, the vested right of the petitioner cannot be taken away on the ground that the Government has revoked the ratio system of the promotion as by promoting the petitioner, only the mistake in not promoting the petitioner earlier was rectified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the statue which were originally incorporated on 27.1.1989. The said provisions read as under:- “Clause 5(2)(b) of Chapter V. All the vacancies in the ministerial cadre up to the level of superintendents shall be filled up by promotion in the following manner. CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (4) (a) 75% posts shall be filled up on the basis of seniority cum merit. (b) 25% vacancies shall be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit out of the employees in a category who have qualified the Departmental examination viz clerks/equiv. and Accountants should have passed Lower Standard Examination and Assistants and Supdts. should have passed Higher Standard or State SAS exam. Seniority for this sub-clause shall be based on the date of qualifying the relevant exam.” Though the said Rules were amended later on but for the purposes of the present writ petition, the above Rule is the relevant. In reply to the writ petition, it has been pointed that respondent No. 4 passed the Higher Standard Examination prior to the petitioner and accordingly, he was considered senior to the petitioner and given promotion as superintendent under the ratio system. Though the petitioner was promoted on 5.11.1999, but the matter was referred to the State Government. Such recommendations were brought to the notice of the State Government and vide communication dated 31.8.2001, it was communicated that the promotion of the petitioner is illegal. The Board of Management in its meeting held on 26.1.2006 has also resolved that the promotions made on the basis of the ratio system after 16.11.1998 were not in order and decided to take follow up action to withdraw such promotion and in pursuance of such decision, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that in the order dated 30.9.1998 (Annexure P.1), R.N.Nagpal is at serial No. 11. Shri R.N. Nagpal qualified the Higher Standard Examination in March, 1990. CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (5) Respondent No. 4 (J.L. Bhayana) is at Serial No. 12, who has qualified the test in March, 1991. Such dates of passing of the examination have been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. It is also admitted that in the seniority of the feeder cadre, R.N. Nagpal, is senior to J.L. Bhayana and J.L. Bhayana is senior to S.K.Pandey, who is at serial No. 13. The petitioner has qualified the Higher Standard Examination in February, 1997 as against respondent No.4, who has qualified the said test in March, 1991. In terms of Clause 5(2)(b) of Chapter V reproduced above, it needs to be examined whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the date his junior respondent No.4 is promoted. A perusal of the sub clause (b) would show that seniority for the purposes of promotion is required to be maintained on the basis of date of qualifying the relevant examination. Respondent No.4, though junior to the petitioner in the feeder cadre has qualified the test in the year 1991 as against the petitioner who qualified the test in 1997. Thus, the said respondent ranks senior to the petitioner for the purposes of promotion under the ratio system. May be he has passed the test later than R.N.Nagpal and S.K. Pandey, but date of qualification in the examination is relevant for promotion to the higher post. Once promoted to the higher cadre, the seniority in the feeder cadre is required to be maintained. That will explain the placement of Shri R.N. Nagpal at Serial No. 11, Shri Bhayana at Serial No. 12 and Shri Pandey at Serial No. 13. Since the petitioner has qualified the test much later than respondent No.4, therefore, he was not senior enough to be promoted under the ratio system. The recommendations of CWP No. 13832 of 2005 (6) the Committee constituted for considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion and subsequent placement at serial No. 11 will not confer any right on the petitioner to continue on the post, if in terms of the Rules, the petitioner was not senior and eligible to be promoted under the ratio system. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE March 28, 2008 ds