C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 Date of decision : January 20, 2009 Smt Urmila Rais ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondent No.1 Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This writ petition has been filed for challenging the advertisement dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-15) by which the District Red Cross Society, Gurgaon advertised the post of Secretary. The petitioner was appointed as Warden in the Working Women Hostel, Red Cross Society, Gurgaon on 19.8.1994. Since the earlier incumbent died in harness, the petitioner moved an application dated C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::2:: 21.2.2005 for adjustment against the post of Secretary and by order dated 5.5.2005, respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner as officiating Secretary on the following conditions :- “1. That she will continue to draw her salary as Warden, Working Women Hostel and would stake no claim over the Secretary, Red Cross, Gurgaon nor she would be given any additional allowance/pay. 2. That her terms of conditions for the post of Warden shall remain unchanged. 3. That the said orders are purely temporary and have no bearing over the natural course of selection/promotion/transfer for the post of Secretary, Red Cross Society, Gurgaon.” On 23.5.2005, respondent No.3 forwarded his recommendation to the President, State Red Cross Society Gurgaon (Governor of Haryana) proposing regular appointment of the petitioner as Secretary. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter for a short while she was divested of the post but was again appointed on officiating basis and by order dated 7.9.2007, the President of the State Red Cross Society intimated that she had been given the charge as officiating whole time Secretary till further orders. It was further clarified that the said letter should not be mis-interpreted as promotion for the post of Secretary. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had been discharging duties as Secretary for this period to the entire satisfaction of her superiors and that there have been earlier instances where persons have been promoted as Secretary and, thus, the impugned advertisement is illegal. C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::3:: In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition and reliance has been placed on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in CWP No.12538 of 1992, Kali Ram vs Indian Red Cross Society, decided on 17.2.1993 and CWP No.14839 of 2001, Devinder Singh Dalas vs Union of India and others decided on 25.9.2001. In the first decision dated 17.2.1993, it has been specifically held that the Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of the expression of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the second decision dated 25.9.2001 the Haryana State Council for Child Welfare has been held similarly not to be State or its instrumentality. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand relies upon another decision of this Court reported as The District Red Cross Society, Sirsa vs Radha Kishan Rajpal and another, 2005(1) SCT 41, wherein it has been held that the District Red Cross Society, Sirsa was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents have urged that this petition should be referred to a Larger Bench to finally determine this question. In my opinion, on merits the petitioner has no case. In the initial order giving additional charge to the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the orders were purely temporary and would have no bearing on the natural course of selection/promotion/transfer for the post of Secretary, as noticed above. Even in the subsequent order dated 7.9.2007 also, it was clarified that the appointment as officiating whole time Secretary would not be mis-interpreted as promotion. In the circumstances, C.W.P No. 3024 of 2008 ::4:: it cannot be held that any right was created in favour of the petitioner when she was granted such officiating charge. That being so, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in advertising the post for which the petitioner can also apply. In these circumstances, I hold that it would not be necessary for me to refer the question regarding maintainability to a Larger Bench and the same can be decided in a more appropriate case, Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'