CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 06, 2009 Rajesh Gupta .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Diwan Adlakha, Advocate, for respondent No.6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner having joined the Department as Labour Inspector on adhoc basis was promoted as Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer on 1.5.1999. The promotion of the petitioner was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: against the vacancy occurring on superannuation of Sh.R.C.Nain. As per the Rules framed in the year 1987 known as the Haryana Labour Department (Group B) Service Rules, 1987, 50% of the posts of Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer are to be filled by direct recruitment, 40% by way of promotion amongst the Labour Inspectors and 10% from amongst the Superintendents/Head Assistants etc. Earlier the service was governed by Service Rules, 1955. The posts of Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer were to be filled by way of direct promotion and from amongst Labour Inspectors in the ratio of 66-2/3 : 33-1/3 percent. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have directly joined as Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer on 6.9.2000. The petitioner, though was promoted on 1.5.1999, but was issued a notice to show cause as to why his date of promotion be not changed to 1.4.2001 on the ground that the promotees were in excess of their quota. The petitioner submitted his reply and through the impugned order (Annexure P-9), his date of promotion has been changed from 1.5.1999 to 1.4.2001. The petitioner has relied upon an information obtained by him under the R.T.I Act to urge that his promotion w.e.f. 1.5.1999 could not be termed in excess of promotees quota. By stating that total number of posts available are 17, the counsel says that 8 out of these would go to direct appointees and 9 to promotees. On this basis, the petitioner would contend that there were 8 persons manning the posts from promotees quota and, thus, the petitioner was within the quota, when he was promoted w.e.f. 1.5.1999 on retirement of Sh.R.C.Nain. This factual position is seriously disputed in the reply filed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: by the respondents. It is conceded that there are total 17 posts of Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer in the Department and 50% of these posts are required to be filled by way of direct recruitment whereas remaining 50% posts are to be filled through promotion. 40% of the promotees quota is meant for Labour Inspectors whereas 10% is for the Superintendent/Head Assistants i.e. Ministerial quota. 8 posts have been, thus, ear marked for direct appointment and 9 for promotional quota. It is then stated that against the 8 posts meant for direct quota, only 6 were occupied by the direct appointees and remaining 11 posts were manned by the promotees against their quota of 9 posts. Finding that the promotees were holding the posts in excess of their prescribed quota, the two junior most promotees i.e. Shri J.S.Rana from ministerial quota and the petitioner from the quota of Labour Inspectors were found liable for reversion to make room for appointment by way of direct recruitment. Accordingly, the show cause notices were issued to both these employees. It is further disclosed that Shri J.S.Rana had then filed a civil suit against the show cause notice and was granted stay against his reversion. This stay order continued till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2001. Thus, he continued to occupy the post. The petitioner also filed a civil suit at Yamuna Nagar, when he was issued a show cause notice. The civil suit filed by Shri J.S.Rana was subsequently dismissed on 17.7.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner got his suit dismissed as withdrawn on 20.8.2004. In the meantime, two posts were sanctioned in the Department due to exigencies of the work and against this, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were appointed by way of direct recruitment. Accordingly, the order of changing the date of promotion of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: petitioner is justified. It is, thus, seen that basically the issue rested on the fact as to how many posts were occupied by the direct recruits and by the promotees. The petitioner has justified his claim to continue on the post with effect from 1.5.1999 only on the ground that his promotion was within the quota of promotees. This fact has been seriously disputed in the reply filed. The respondents have given the details of posts held by the direct recruits. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the averments made in the reply, giving details of the posts occupied by persons from different quotas. For the same very relief, the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which he got dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file the writ petition or fresh suit. The submission made by the State counsel that the petitioner withdrew the suit as the similar claim made by J.S.Rana was dismissed would not be without substance. The petitioner appears to have got his suit dismissed as withdrawn when he found that he was not likely to get relief. Having done so, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking the same relief, though by that time his date of promotion stood changed. The cause and the pleas ofcourse would remain the same. The petitioner, thus, has neither made out any case on merits for his promotion w.e.f. 1.5.1999 nor to maintain the present writ petition after having got his suit dismissed as withdrawn where he had sought relief for the same cause. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. October 06, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE