CWP No.15603/2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15603/2006 Date of Decision: 31.1.2008 Arun Kumar Jindal ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another. ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh. JS Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) Vide order dated 13.4.2006 (P-4) petitioner was reverted from the post of Sanskrit Teacher to that of JBT Teacher. Vide order dated 1.7.2006 (P-11) his pay was re-fixed and some deduction was ordered for the excess amount paid to him. It is apparent from the record that vide order (P-1), the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sanskrit Teacher on 15.5.2003. Condition no.2 of the appointment letter reads thus:- “2.These orders are subject to review in case it is transpired that at a later stage the some senior teachers who otherwise eligible could not be promoted.” Petitioner continued to work against the above referred post for about three years when it was detected that when promoting him cases of many seniors were not considered. By noting that fact, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be reverted to the post of CWP No.15603/2006 2 JBT Teacher. He filed reply and after considering the same order Annexure P-4 was passed. Order Annexure P-11 is a consequence of passing of order Annexure P-4. At the time of arguments Sh. Maanipur has tried to impress upon us that in District Yamunanagar, total posts in cadre of Sanskrit Teacher are 146 and as per the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C Service)Rules,1998 (for short the 1998 Rules) 25% posts are reserved for promotion of JBT Teachers to the post of Sanskrit teachers. If posts falling to the share of JBT Teachers are calculated it would come to about 36 and as on today only 17 posts have been filled up. Even after adjusting the seniors (who are stated to be 9) he can be retained in service. We feel that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. It is apparent from the record and as has been stated in the reply that when District Yamunanagar was created in the year 1990 there existed 60 posts of Sanskrit teachers. Till coming into force of the 1998 Rules 86 more posts were created and out of those 86, 17 had fallen to the share of JBT Teachers for promotion. In view of that it is necessary to revert the petitioner to adjust his seniors. We are convinced that the stand taken by the State is perfectly justified. Even reading of the written statement indicates that even a lenient view has been taken. In fact 25% posts would fell to the share of JBT Teachers only after coming into force of 1998 Rules and not prior thereto. Any post which may have fallen vacant before the enactment of those Rules was liable to be filled up as per old existing rules/ instructions. Furthermore, when reply was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice no such stand was taken by the petitioner which is now being raised before us. With regard to recovery ordered against the CWP No.15603/2006 3 petitioner, we make it very clear that as promotion was given by the department, without any mis-representation made by the petitioner, the department is not entitled to effect any recovery from him. As he has worked against the post of Sanskrit teacher for a period of about 3 years he is held entitled to draw the pay which he would have been entitled to draw if not promoted to the post of Sanskrit teacher. He will also be entitled to get increments, if any, available to the JBT Teachers for the period he remained on the post of Sanskrit Teacher. Disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.1.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge