Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991 Date of decision: September 26,2011 Madan Lal Bansal ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh Present: Mr. J.S.Mannipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ... Ranjit Singh,J(Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of instructions dated 29.5.1989 and 26.12.1989 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) respectively on the ground that these are contrary to Rule 9(1)(d)(4) of Haryana Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) Circle Cadre (Ministerial Group C) Service Rules, 1988. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and his name was recommended to the respondents for issuing appointment letter as Steno- typist (Hindi). Copy of the appointment letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner joined the department on 2.2.1973 and was transferred to the present circle. Ever since then, the petitioner was performing his duty with sincerity and dedication. There were no promotional channel for Steno-typist to the promotion of Stenographer as the post of Stenographers were to be filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion and under the existing rules. These rules have been Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991 2 adopted by the State of Haryana. One Ms. Arjuna Kumari also joined as Steno-typist (Hindi) and was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on 10.7.1978. These rules were framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The method of recruitment of Stenographer was by promotion amongst Steno-typists or by transfer or deputation of an official already in the service of the Government of India or any State Government and Rule 9(1)(d)(4) makes provision in this regard. In the year 1989, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned instructions which are stated to be contrary to the rule that Hindi Steno- typists are required to appear in English Shorthand with speed of 100 words per minute for promotion to the post of Stenographer. Thereafter, instructions were issued on 26.12.1989 that shorthand test for promotion of Steno-typist to the post of Stenographer was likely to be held in the end of January, 1990. It was pointed out that Steno-typists who did not take the examination or failed to pass the examination will be ignored for promotion to the post of Stenographers and they will have no claim on the basis of seniority over the officials who will be promoted on the basis of the test. The petitioner represented on the ground that at the time of joining the service, this condition was not there and if he had known the same, he may not have joined the department. The petitioner also expressed that it is very difficult for him to learn English Type and Shorthand to pass this test within a short time. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice. The petitioner had then filed this writ petition. Mr. Nehra has drawn my attention to the written statement filed in this case. The counsel points out that when this writ petition was filed in the year 1991, the test was introduced only on the basis of Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991 3 executive/administrative instructions but subsequent thereto, the provision has been incorporated in the rule on 13.7.1989. The petitioner thereafter has filed a rejoinder to urge that the posts which were already available prior to amendment of the rules would have to be filled up as per the old position as the amended rule would apply only to the post which become available after amendment of the rules. In support, reliance has been placed in the case titled as Y.V.Rangayya and others Versus J.Sreenivasa Rao and others reported as 1983(1)(S.L.R.789. Mr. Nehra contends that though State has not filed any further pleadings to contest the position pleaded in the rejoinder but still respondents can consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in Y.V.Rangayya”s case (supra). Accordingly, without going deep into the matter about the controversy raised, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. September 26,2011 (RANJIT SINGH) nk JUDGE