Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Ram Sarup Masoon ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who was working as Junior Analyst in the Food & Supplies Department, had filed this writ petition seeking direction for considering his case for promotion to the post of Head Analyst against 16 point reserved on the roster for Backward Class candidates. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives have been substituted as the petitioners. The petitioner has staked his claim for promotion w.e.f. 26.11.1986 that is the date when respondent No.3, Rajbir Singh was promoted as Head Analyst as he was allegedly promoted against roster point 16 meant for Backward Class candidate. Conceded position otherwise is that the petitioner subsequently was promoted as Head Analyst on 9.10.1995. The petitioner, however, claims that he was entitled to this promotion w.e.f. 26.11.1986. Though he is no more but still the benefit, which would accrue to him on account of this back date promotion ultimately would benefit his Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 2 legal representatives for the purpose of fixing his family pension and other pensionary benefits. This writ petition had come up for hearing earlier also and on direction issued by this Court, the affidavit was filed by Mr. N.S. Dhania, Under Secretary, Government of Haryana, Food and Supplies Department. The details mentioned in the affidavit would show the reason for which the Roster point 16 was not given to the petitioner. Though it is conceded that Roster point 16 was meant for Backward Class category candidates but it is pointed out that there were total 38 posts of Head Analyst out of which 33% was to be filled by direct recruitment and 67% by promotion. It is also stated that between 18.9.1979 to 13.2.1990, 17 vacancies in the Cadre of Head Analysts were filled. 15 out of these were filed by promotion and two by direct recruitment. 10th and 16th points in these were reserved by Backward Class candidates. Only one point at Roster 10 was consumed by Backward Class category. The next point was meant at Roster point 16. It is then explained that Head Analyst Balbir Singh of General category and Ram Singh of Scheduled Caste category were promoted as Roster point No. 13 and 14 meant for General category and Scheduled Caste category. They were so promoted after giving them military service benefit towards seniority vide order dated 24.3.1986. As a consequence of this Sh. Rajbeer Singh and Balwan Singh, Head Analyst, who were senior and promoted as such prior to the revised seniority had to be reverted to Junior Analyst as per the same order, copy Annexure R/1. It is further pointed out Sh. Gian Chand Gupta, Junior Analyst, who was promoted on 1.3.1984 as Head Analyst was reverted from the post to Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 3 Junior Analyst on 24.3.1986 on account of the fact that one Mohlar Singh, who was dismissed from the Government service on 31.1.1977 was reinstated consequent to the judgment passed by Senior Sub Judge, Chanigarh on 16.1.1985. He was ordered to be reinstated in a Civil Appeal filed by him in the year 1984. Since these three persons who are otherwise required to be reverted because of this situation, the department took up the case with the Government for relaxation of 10% cut imposed for promotion as per the policy due to economic measures. The permission was so granted by the Government but on the condition that against these posts only the candidates, who were otherwise required to be reverted would be adjusted. Accordingly, against these vacancies specifically released, Balwan Singh, Rajbir Singh and Gian Chand were promoted on 10.12.1986. Roster point 16 could not be given to the petitioner though it officially belong to the Backward Class as it was to save the person from being reverted. If this concession has not been given by the Government, the petitioner would not have been entitled to be promoted against Roster point 16. Since this concession was given only for a specific purpose, this is advanced as a justification not to fill the Roster point 16 from the Backward Class candidate. Subsequently, when the vacancies arose, 3 vacancies of direct quota were caused and out of 3 posts, the petitioner was given promotion against one of these vacant posts w.e.f. 12.10.1995 to complete the short fall of one Backward Class candidates. The justification offered by the respondents appears well founded. It is true that a particular Roster point was meant for the petitioner being Civil Writ Petition No. 1148 of 1990 4 Backward Class but there is a justifiable reason for not giving this post to him. If this relaxation had not been granted by the Government, the petitioner still would not have been entitled to be promoted. Since this relaxation was granted on a particular condition, the same could not have been ignored. This may have resulted to some prejudice to the case of the petitioner for promotion but the course adopted by the respondents cannot be termed as illegal and unjust. Thus it would not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has subsequently been promoted and now his LRs are getting family pension for the post he would have got, if he had promoted against Roster point 16. In this view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I do not consider it justified to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. November 10, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE