C.W.P. No.11396 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11396 of 1993 Date of Decision: 18.01.2010 Mange Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the quashing of the order dated 03.09.1993 under the terms of which the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were treated as Seniors above the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner was that he was working as Clerk in the respondent-department and the qualification for the next higher post as a Statistical Assistant was graduate with Economics or Mathematics with Statistics as one of the elective subjects or Commerce with two years experience as Assistant or Stenographer or Accountant-cum-Clerk or Accountant. Graduate 2nd class in one of the above elective subjects would be preferred. C.W.P. No.11396 of 1993 -2- This qualification that existed in the year 1971 did not enable the petitioner to be considered for promotion immediately since he was not a graduate. It appears that on 01.01.1979, 13 posts of Statistical Assistants/Research Investigators were filled up by promotion and in the beginning 9 Accountant-cum-Clerks were promoted and while giving effect to such promotion, the petitioner had been placed above respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. It appears that the qualification for the next higher post itself was changed from the requirement of a graduate degree with the subjects as mentioned above to Matric qualification with 4 years experience as Assistant Accountant, Accountant-cum-Clerk, Junior Auditor, Senior Scale Stenographer/Cashier. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that when the petitioner was found qualified by virtue of the amended qualifications, the promotion that was given on 01.01.1979 could not be withdrawn by the only fact that the amended qualifications were made subsequently. According to him, it would amount to withdrawing a promotion, which was lawfully given and which the amended Rules allowed for. 2. The contention on behalf of the State was that the amendment to the qualification from the Graduate degree to Matric with four years experience were done through a representation on 29.02.1980, which was approved only on 26.06.1981. Consequently while considering for promotion, the C.W.P. No.11396 of 1993 -3- issue of seniority-cum-merit could be applied only amongst persons, who had the requisite qualifications. On 01.01.1979, the petitioner admittedly was not a graduate and he was, therefore, not eligible for being considered to be promoted. That such promotion was done contrary to Rules and the contention was that the promotion was wrongly done, which was sought to be set aside by virtue of a subsequent order. The contention was that the respondents No.3 to 5 were graduates at the relevant point of time on 01.01.1979 and hence they were eligible. On the basis of the inter se seniority, they had to be placed above the petitioner and that was the basis for reworking the seniority and placing the respondent Nos.3 to 5 above the petitioner. 3. The whole question would depend on, therefore, whether the petitioner lawfully held the promotion post by the only fact that posts had been created for Statistical Assistants and vacancies had to be filled up. Such promotions could not have been done de hors the Rules extant at the time. If it is admitted that the Rules were amended modifying the qualifications only on 29.02.1980 that was approved on 26.06.1981, it only means that at the time when the petitioner was promoted on 01.01.1979, the promotion had been effected without the requisite qualification for such appointment. The impugned proceedings address the issue regarding seniority alongside the qualification criteria and there is no error in the impugned order to require an intervention C.W.P. No.11396 of 1993 -4- in the wirt petition. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 18, 2010 Pankaj*