CWP No.16923 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16923 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08 November,2011 Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present: :-Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER. J. (ORAL). The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18th August, 2010, Annexure P-6. The petitioner joined service of the respondents as a Class- IV employee on 24th September, 1980, and was promoted as a Clerk on 28th November,1986. As per the stipulation in the promotion order he was required to pass a typing test which he successfully did on 20th November, 1987. Thereafter, he continued to discharge his duties as Clerk. In the meantime, he was confronted with the order Annexure P-6 by which his promotion as Clerk was sought to be negated and amount of annual grade increments was ordered to be recovered from him. Grievance of the petitioner is not far to imagine. He contends that he has successfully passed the test with a speed of 28.1 w.p.m and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sirsa, certified by way of Annexure P-3, that he has cleared the test on 20th November, 1987, which fact was entered in his service book as well and subsequent thereto he has been performing his duties as a Clerk and that now by virtue of Annexure P-6 which is coming into CWP No.16923 of 2010 2 existence after 23 years, his promotion is sought to be set aside and recovery is being effected from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is completely arbitrary in the wake of the facts. The respondents have sought to justify the order by saying that the rules required that typing test should be cleared by incumbent by having a speed of 30 w.p.m and to substantiate their plea reference has been made to Annexure R-6 which are instructions of 1974, requiring an incumbent to have typing speed of 30 w.p.m which condition also explicitly finds mention in the 1998 Rules. On the strength of this, it is contended by the counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, that petitioner having failed to achieve the minimum prescribed standard cannot be promoted to work as a Clerk and specially when there is objection by audit to this effect. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondents, cancelling the promotion of the petitioner after lapse of 23 years and then seeking recovery of an amount of additional increments can best be termed as arbitrary. Without going into the nitty gritty of the applicability of the rules or instructions of 1998, the fact remains that the petitioner had duly cleared the typing test in 1987 and he was then conferred a promotion as a Clerk and permitted to work for a period of 23 years for which period it is expected that respondents would have extracted the work of a Clerk from him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not discharging his duties proficiently. Even though it has found mention in the reply that petitioner was found involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but this fact does not find mention in Annexure P- 6,vide which the promotion of the petitioner has been sought to be cancelled. The only reason reflected in Annexure P-6 is that he has CWP No.16923 of 2010 3 not qualified the typing test which is belied by the record itself having certified by the General Manager, that the petitioner has qualified the test. The respondents are now precluded form having second opinion on this issue after lapse of 23 years. The action being totally arbitrary, impugned order Annexure P-6 is set asside. The petition stands allowed. 8.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) aarti JUDGE