CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 11,2009 Kiran Bala .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....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. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The issue raised is about the status of a post of Statistical Assistant and Assistant Statistical Assistant vis-a-vis a post of Clerk etc. The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Computer Clerk on 28.5.1973 in the pay scale of Rs.110-225, was promoted as Junior Statistical Assistant on 18.9.1974, carrying a pay scale of Rs.160-400. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer, which was re-designated as a Computer Clerk. The petitioner has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 2 }: claimed seniority over respondent No.3, who had joined the Department as a Clerk saying that Computer Clerk is higher post. It is otherwise conceded that the pay scale for the Clerk was also Rs.110-225. The second ground to claim seniority is that the pay scale of Junior Statistical Assistant is equivalent to the Assistant on the clerical side and on this basis the petitioner claims seniority over respondent No.3, who continued to work as a Clerk. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Statistical Assistant on 18.9.1976, which carried a pay scale of Rs.225-500. On 2.3.1981, however, she was again reverted to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant. It is averred that pay scale of Junior Statistical Assistant as well as of Assistant on the clerical side was revised to Rs.520- 1050. The pay scale of the Clerk, however, was revised to Rs.400- 660. In fact, the petitioner was promoted as a Field Investigator, which is not called as Statistical Assistant, on 18.9.1976. Her reversion had followed on the ground that one Vinay Jhingan, who was earlier ignored, was required to be promoted to the post of Field Investigator, on adverse remarks in his ACR having been expunged. On 9.3.1982, Rules known as Haryana Labour Department (Group C) Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) were published. Appendix A to the Rules gives out various posts in the cadre. Grievance is that respondent No.3 was promoted as Statistical Assistant on 8.3.1983 without considering the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner represented against injustice done to her. The promotion of respondent No.3 and one Zile Singh was, thus, cancelled. Subsequently, an order promoting the petitioner as well as Zile and respondent No.3 as Statistical Assistants was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 3 }: made but inter-se seniority was not determined. As per the petitioner, post of Junior Statistical Assistant is clearly superior to that of the Clerk as it is a promotional post for Clerks, Computer Clerks, Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers. It is accordingly pleaded that there can not be a promotion to a post which is equivalent to the said post. By making reference to Rule 9 (4) of the Rules, it is stated that the inter-se seniority for the promoted post is to be determined by the date of continuous appointment in the respective cadre. Grievance is made that Junior Statistical Assistant can not be clubbed or equated with Junior Scale Stenographer or Steno-typist or Clerk or Computer Clerk in the matter of promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, which has been done as per Rule 9 (1)(m). On this basis, it is pleaded that un-equals are being treated equals and even the provisions of the Rule 9(1)(m) are questioned on this ground. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the order declaring her junior to respondent No.3. The petitioner would pray that un-equals are being treated as equal, which can not be done. In the reply filed by the official respondents, it is stated that respondent No.3 is senior to the petitioner as he was appointed as a Clerk on 29.11.1971 whereas the petitioner was also appointed as Clerk on 28.5.1973. It is stated that the petitioner was promoted as Junior Statistical Assistant purely on temporary basis. Reference is made to the rules to point out that Junior Statistical Assistant or Readers or Rent Collectors and Junior Scale Stenographers, Stenotypists, Clerks or Computer Clerks having four years experiences were eligibles for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant. The case of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 4 }: accordingly considered for promotion and respondent No.3 was promoted. Respondent No.3 has also filed a separate reply where he has stated that even the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant was done in a questionable manner. It is stated that the petitioner was promoted by violating all the canons of fairness and rule of law, as she was so promoted at the behest of her father, who was then working as Under Secretary in the office of Chief Secretary, Haryana, who had pressurized respondent No.2 to promote the petitioner by ignoring the claim of others. The whole case set-up by the petitioner is that she was senior to respondent No.3 as the post of Computer Clerk could not be equated with the post of Clerk. Similarly, she was promoted as Junior Statistical Assistant, which is a promotional post for Clerks, Computer Clerks, Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers. The petitioner would accordingly urge that Clerks, Computer Clerks, Stenotypists and Junior Scale Stenographers can not be made eligible for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, which is done in view of Rule 9(1)(m) of the Rules. Submission is that persons holding those very posts are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant whereas they have also been made eligible for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, which would be unfair and inequitable. A minute perusal of the Rules would reveal that the submission made by the petitioner is misconceived. The method of recruitment to various posts is provided under Rule 9. As per Rule 9 (1)(m), 66 % of posts of Statistical Assistants is required to be filled CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 5 }: by promotion from amongst the Junior Statistical Assistants or Readers or Rent Collectors or Junior Scale Stenographers or Stenotypists or Clerks or Computer Clerks. 34% is by way of direct recruitment or by transfer on deputation of an official already in service. Thus, Junior Statistical Assistant as well as Clerk or Computer Clerks are a feeder post for Statistical Assistant. This is the cause of grievance by the petitioner, who would say that un- equals have been equated as Clerk or Computer Clerks are also the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Statistical Assistant. Rule 9(1)(p) is referred to in this regard to show that Junior Statistical Assistants are to be promoted from amongst the Junior Scale Stenographers or Stenotypists or Clerks or Computer Clerks. A perusal of Rule 9(1)(n) and 9(1)(o) would further show that Reader as well as Rent Collector are promotional posts for Junior Scale Stenographers, Stenotypists, Clerks or Computer Clerks. Apparent impression would seem to emerge that unequal have been equated. However, reference to Appendix B to the Rules, which prescribes qualification and experience for appointment/ promotion to various posts would dispel this apparent impression. For promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant by way of direct recruitment, essential academic qualification is a degree of Bachelor of Arts from recognized University with Economics or Public Administration or Mathematics or Sociology with Statistics or Social survey and in addition to, 3 years experience in collection, compilation and analysis of Labour statistics, knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard is also the requirement. The essential educational qualification and experience for appointment by way of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 6 }: other than direct recruitment to the post of Statistical Assistant is a degree in bachelor of Arts of a recongised University with economics or Public Administration or Mathematics or Sociology with Statistics or Social Survey. For such appointment/promotion, three experience as a Junior Statistical Assistant or a Reader or a Rent Collector and 4 years experience as a Junior Scale Stenographer or a Stenotypist, or a Clerk or Computer Clerk is prescribed as essential requirement. Direct appointment to the post of Reader, Rent Collector or Junior Statistical Assistant is not provided. These posts are promotional posts for a Junior Scale Stenographer or Stenotypist or Clerk or Computer Clerk but 3 years experience is provided as essential condition for promotion to these posts of Reader, Rent Collector and Junior Statistical Assistant. Reading of these provisions would clearly show that a Clerk or Computer Clerk etc. can directly be considered for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant and as well as to the post of Reader, Rent Collector and Junior Statistical Assistant. However, unlike Reader, Rent Collector and Junior Statistical Assistant, they have to have four years experience for being eligible for consideration for the post of Statistical Assistant whereas this condition of experience is three years in the case of Junior Statistical Assistant or Reader or Rent Collector. There is even a clear distinction in regard to requirement of educational qualification as well as the requirement of experience. For a Clerk or Computer Clerk to seek promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, he has to have a degree of Bachelor of Arts, which is not the requirement for him when he is to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 1987 :{ 7 }: Statistical Assistant or Rent Collector or of Reader. For such promotion, requirement is three years experience for Clerk or Computer Clerk whereas for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, such experience is four years as provided in the Rules. It can, thus, be said that it is not a case of unequal being equated. There is a clear distinction made in the rules and the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner on the ground that unequals have been equated can not be accepted. The submission that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 in this background also is misconceived and, thus, can not be accepted. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. August 11, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE