CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 19, 2008 R.K.Jain .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....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: None for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing order, Annexure P-8, and for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to give deemed date of promotion to the petitioner as S.D.O. with effect from 1.1.1980 or to promote him from 9.4.1980, the date from which his junior Ram Lal Mahajan was promoted. The petitioner has also asked for said promotion with all consequential benefits. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined as a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 2 }: Junior Engineer on 7.12.1959. He claims that he had passed all the departmental examinations by November 1979 and became eligible for promotion on the post of S.D.O. with effect from 1.1.1980. He, however, was promoted as S.D.O. and given deemed date of promotion with effect from 14.1.1982. The petitioner had even filed Civil Writ Petition No.4489 of 1982, which was disposed of on statement made on behalf of the State that the ranking list shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 9 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970 (for short, “the Rules”) within six months. Grievance of the petitioner is that this ranking list, though was prepared, yet the same was not in accordance with the Rules. Apparently the petitioner, challenged the said ranking list prepared by filing another Writ Petition No.4403 of 1985. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 24.5.1989. Letters Patent Appeal filed against said judgment was dismissed on 22.12.1989. The state then impugned the orders by filing Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7.8.1990 with a direction to the State to prepare the ranking list in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules within a period of three months. As can be noticed from Annexure P-3, the petitioner and some others were promoted as Sub Divisional Officers in the pay scale of Rs.940-2000 in public interest but as a stop gap arrangement for a period of six months against the posts reserved for direct recruits subject to the condition that they shall be reverted to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 3 }: their original cadre when direct recruits became available. Some of the persons junior to the petitioner were similarly promoted and were manning the posts since the year 1980, as is claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly made a representation for his promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted. He further complained that the Government continued to promote his juniors on regular basis. The petitioner made yet another representation on 9.1.1996, which received no response from the respondents. He then filed third writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No.7528 of 1996, which appears to have been disposed of by directing the respondent- State to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. When the representations filed by the petitioner were not decided, he filed a contempt petition bearing C.O.C.P. No.608 of 1997. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the representation filed by the petitioner was decided by passing the impugned order, Annexure P- 8. The contempt petition was accordingly rendered infructuous. The petitioner got another cause to challenge the order, Annexure P-8, and that is how the present writ petition is filed by him. The writ petition was admitted on 1.9.1998 and is pending since then. The respondent State has filed reply. A preliminary objection is raised in the written statement. The petitioner has challenged the criteria of preparing yearwise ranking list. It is disclosed that the petitioner has passed the Departmental Professional Examination (for short, “DPE”) on 10.1.1980 and, thus, became eligible for inclusion of his name in the ranking list issued in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 4 }: the year 1981. According to the respondents, the name of the petitioner has, thus, been properly placed in the yearwise ranking list from 1981 onwards as per Rule 9 of the Rules. The petitioner, as such, was promoted as S.D.O. with effect from 16.10.1995 vide order No.8/94/83-4IE dated 25.6.1997. Reference is also made to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7.8.1990, which is to the following effect:- “In our view, a fresh list should be prepared by the Government of Haryana within three months from today in accordance with the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II Public Works Department (Irrigation Br.) Rules, 1970 and in particular Rule 9 thereof. If there are any instructions including those in para 11.4 in the Manual, which are inconsistent with the Rules, the same will be ignored and the list will be made strictly in accordance with the Rules, untrammeled by inconsistent observations, if any, in the judgment of the High Court. It is clarified that if any promotions had been made earlier in accordance with the Rules, the same shall not be disturbed. The appeal is disposed of as afore-stated. No order as to costs.” The State has taken stand that as per the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, yearwise ranking lists for promotion to the posts of S.D.O. were prepared and the petitioner was rightly promoted as S.D.O w.e.f. 16.10.1995. vide order dated 25.6.1997. It CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 5 }: is then disclosed that no junior to the petitioner has been promoted as S.D.O. It is further claimed that the petitioner was senior to some of the Junior Engineers in the cadre of Junior Engineers but they become eligible for inclusion of their names in the ranking list of the year 1980 as they had passed the DPE as per the Rules. The petitioner, however, passed the DPE on 10.1.1980 and, thus, became eligible for inclusion of his name in the list for the year 1981 onwards. It is, thus, stated that the petitioner has been promoted according to his seniority. Rule 9 of the Rules requires the respondent-Government to consider the cases of all eligible officers for promotion to the service as on the 1st day of January of that year. It also enjoins upon the Government to prepare a list of officers suitable for promotion in order of seniority in Haryana Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Overseers (Engineering) Service and Members of the Draftsman and Tracers Service. The rule further provides that any junior who in the opinion of the Government is of exceptional merit and suitability may be assigned place in the list higher than that of the officers senior to him in his own class. The list so prepared is required to be revised every year. The case of the respondent- Government obviously is that this list under Rule 9 is prepared yearly on the basis of seniority and on account of a person qualifying in the DPE. This fact does not seem to be in serious dispute between the parties as in Para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has averred that he became eligible for the post of S.D.O. on 1.1.1980 as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 6 }: the petitioner had passed the DPE in November 1979 and he was having requisite experience of more than 10 years as a Junior Engineer. This factual position, however, is disputed in the reply filed by the State. Contents of Para 4 of the petition have been denied as wrong and position as given in the preliminary objection is reiterated by the State. As already noticed, according to the State, the petitioner cleared the DPE on 10.1.1980 and, thus, became eligible for inclusion of his name in the ranking list issued in the year 1981. The petitioner has not filed any replication to this averment made in the reply. There is nothing on record, which would support the stand of the petitioner that he qualified in the DPE in the year 1979. Nothing has been stated in response to the reply filed by the State that the petitioner qualified in this DPE on 10.1.1980 and thus, became eligible for inclusion of his name in the year 1981. Since the petitioner has been considered and granted promotion in accordance with the yearwise ranking list in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. It is seen that the promotions in the years 1980 and 1982 etc. were as a stop gap arrangement for a limited period with the condition that they all were to be reverted, when the direct recruits became available. Some of the juniors appear to have been promoted as stop-gap arrangement as they had become eligible by passing DPE. When the petitioner passed DPE in the year 1980, he became eligible for promotion and was promoted as stop-gap arrangement on 28.1.1982. There is no infirmity seen in the action of the respondent-State. Otherwise also, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13844 OF 1998 :{ 7 }: nothing has been shown or pointed out or apparent from the record, which would show that the petitioner had qualified earlier and was eligible for promotion with effect from 1.1.1980. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. February 19 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE