Civil Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 29, 2011 Lila Ram & others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana & 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: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos.17030 and 2764 of 2010 as common question of law is involved in both the petitions. The facts are noticed from C.W.P. No.17030 of 2010. The petitioners in this case were initially appointed on various class IV (Group D) posts in different Government Schools in District Gurgaon. The petitioners are matric passed with science as a subject. The petitioners were appointed as Peon and promoted as Laboratory Attendants/Laboratory Assistants in the respective schools between 4.3.1994 and 25.11.1997. With effect from Civil Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2010 -2- July/August, 2004, Science stream in various Government Senior Secondary Schools was closed and thus, the post of Laboratory Attendant became surplus. The petitioners were adjusted as Clerks in Government Schools in District Mewat. The post of Laboratory Attendant was the sanctioned post in the statutory Haryana State Secondary Education Field Offices (Group D) Services Rules, 1998. Post of Clerk was the promotional post for such employees as per Haryana Education Department, Sub Offices, Ministerial (Group C) Service Rules, 1983. As per the said Rules, the petitioners, who were working as Laboratory Attendants, were not considered for promotion, whereas some of their juniors, were promoted in the cadre of Class IV (Group D). They were appointed subsequent to the petitioners and have been promoted as Clerk. The petitioners served a legal notice. The respondents instead of considering the claim of the petitioners, adjusted them as Laboratory Attendants. The petitioners have, accordingly filed this writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Clerk. The State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the Rules of 1983 have been amended in the year 1998. Post of Senior Laboratory Attendant is now provided as promotional post. 20% of the posts are reserved for promotion from amongst Laboratory Attendants, whereas 80% is meant for direct recruitment. On this basis, it is stated that the petitioners are now not entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Civil Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2010 -3- Division Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.7241 of 2007 (Asgar Khan Versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 14.1.2007. Asgar Khan like the petitioners was working as Laboratory Attendant and had sought direction for his promotion to the post of Clerk. The Division Bench after considering the rule position has allowed the writ petition. The respondent-State had filed a Special Leave Petition against the said judgment, which is also dismissed. Today, the State counsel points out that the State has filed an application for review of the judgment in the case of Asgar Khan (Supra). On the contrary, counsel for the petitioners has referred to another decision in the case of Ashwani Kumar & others versus State of Haryana & another, (CWP No.16663 of 2009) decided on 17.1.2011. A Single Bench of this Court has allowed the similar claim of the petitioner in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) by placing reliance on Asgar Khan's case (supra). Same stand as is advanced in the present case was raised in the said case. It was pointed out that as per the rules, the petitioners would not be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk. Finding that the case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment, the writ petition was allowed. The Court finally observed as under:- “For the reluctance of the respondents in not disposing of the case of the petitioners despite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, finding an expression of affirmation in the order of the Civil Writ Petition No. 17030 of 2010 -4- Hon'ble Supreme Court and forcing the Court to waste time on unnecessary exercise, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.25000/- on the respondents-State. The costs shall be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and a report to this effect shall be placed on the file of this case.” Since the defence as projected before me has already been considered by this Court and not accepted, it will not be appropriate for the respondents now to raise that plea again once the issue has been settled. The present writ petitions would also deserve to be allowed. It is so ordered. The writ petitions are allowed in the same terms as observed in the Division Bench of this Court in Asgar Khan's case (supra) July 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE