IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 12580 of 1993 Date of Decision: 1.2.2010. Rameshwar Dayal --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Education Department, Haryana in Govt. High School, Indri, Distt. Gurgaon on 15.5.1979, where he worked up to 10.2.1982. He was transferred to Govt. High School, Kalwari on 11.2.1982. It appears that at the time of joining of the service petitioner was under matric and he passed the matriculation in March, 1990. Under the norms for promotion to the next higher post of Lab Attendant the Govt. instructions prescribed matriculation as the qualification. Class-IV employees were to be promoted on the basis of the seniority. The petitioner has named two Class-IV employees namely Bhagwan Dass and Giridhar Gopal, who were appointed as Peon in District Gurgaon on 2.3.1981 and 15.11.1979 respectively. Promotions to the post of Lab Attendants were made on 23.5.1991 and the above mentioned two persons were promoted ignoring the petitioner. The petitioner served a legal notice Annexure P-2. The legal notice of the petitioner was disposed of by the District Education Officer, Gurgaon vide memo dated 3.9.1991 stating therein that the promotions have been made on the basis of the CWP. No. 12580 of 1993 -2- passing of the matriculation examination. It is stated that a Class-IV employee who has passed matriculation earlier is to be considered for promotion earlier than the senior who may have passed the matriculation later. In the reply filed by the respondents, the clear stand is that the employee who passed matriculation earlier is to be preferred over the senior for purposes of promotion. It is, however, admitted that the promotion is to be made from Class-IV employees to the post of Lab Attendant on the passing of the matriculation and on the basis of the seniority. It is further mentioned that the seniority is maintained institution-wise and thus the petitioner cannot claim that the persons namely Bhagwan Das and Giridhar Gopal were junior to him. Respondents have also relied upon the Govt. instructions dated 21.10.1987, copy whereof is already placed on record as Annexure P-4. Through the aforesaid communication, it is again clarified that the promotion is to be made on the basis of the date of passing of the matriculation examination and an employee who has qualified the matriculation examination earlier will be preferred over the senior. At the same time, it is maintained that the promotion is to be made on the basis of the seniority from the candidates who possessed the requisite qualification. During the pendency of this petition the petitioner has also placed on record Annexures P-5 to P-7. Annexure P-5 is document, whereby particulars of the petitioner, Bhagwan Dass and Giridhar Gopal are stated. In this document petitioner is shown to be at Sr. No. 1 and the above named two persons namely Giridhar Gopal and Bhagwan Dass are shown at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Their dates of passing of the matriculation examination are given. On the basis of the aforesaid document, it is pleaded on behalf of CWP. No. 12580 of 1993 -3- the petitioner that the petitioner is shown to be senior and thus had a preferential right of promotion as against Giridhar Gopal and Bhagwan Dass. Record was called from the office of Sub Divisional Education Officer, Gurgaon relating to promotion. In this document, petitioner is shown at Sr. No.1 with the date of appointment as 15.5.1979 and the above named two persons are shown at Sr. Nos. 2 and 5 respectively with their dates of appointment as 15.11.1979 and 2.3.1981 respectively. In response to the contention of the respondents that the promotion is made institution- wise, petitioner has referred to Annexure P-7 which indicates that Giridhar Gopal and Bhagwan Dass were not promoted in their own institutions but on promotion were shifted to another institution. This document clearly indicates that the promotion is not institution-wise, even if, the seniority is maintained institution-wise. It is common case of the parties that the promotion is to be made on the basis of the seniority. Promotions were made on 23.5.1991. On that date the petitioner as also Giridhar Gopal and Bhagwan Dass all were matriculates. Admittedly, petitioner is senior to them. Thus, the petitioner could not have been denied promotion on the ground that the other two junior persons had passed matriculation prior to him. This petition is pending since 1993. Learned counsel appering on behalf of petitioner submits that even till date the petitioner has not been promoted. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be granted promotion to the post of Lab Attendant w.e.f. 23.5.1991, the date when Giridhar Gopal and Bhagwan Dass were CWP. No. 12580 of 1993 -4- promoted. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the monitory benefit, though, he will be entitled to notional benefits of all increments and other consequential benefits. Let the claim of the petitioner be settled within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.2.2010. lucky