Disposed

Madan Lal Bansal v. State of Hry. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2011CWP/13432/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a writ petition seeking quashing of promotion instructions deemed contrary to Service Rules. The Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion by passing a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider petitioner's case for promotion and pass a speaking order within three months.

Madan Lal Bansal Vs State of Hry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991

¶5

Date of decision: September 26,2011

Madan Lal Bansal

..Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh

¶12

Present: Mr. J.S.Mannipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondents.

¶13

Ranjit Singh,J(Oral)

¶14

The petitioner seeks quashing of instructions dated 29.5.1989 and 26.12.1989 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) respectively on the ground that these are contrary to Rule 9(1)(d)(4) of Haryana Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) Circle Cadre (Ministerial Group C) Service Rules, 1988.

¶15

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and his name was recommended to the respondents for issuing appointment letter as Stenotypist (Hindi). Copy of the appointment letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner joined the department on 2.2.1973 and was transferred to the present circle. Ever since then, the petitioner was performing his duty with sincerity and dedication. There were no promotional channel for Steno-typist to the promotion of Stenographer as the post of Stenographers were to be filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion and under the existing rules. These rules have been

¶16

¶17

Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991

¶18

adopted by the State of Haryana.

¶19

One Ms. Arjuna Kumari also joined as Steno-typist (Hindi) and was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on 10.7.1978. These rules were framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The method of recruitment of Stenographer was by promotion amongst Steno-typists or by transfer or deputation of an official already in the service of the Government of India or any State Government and Rule 9(1)(d)(4) makes provision in this regard.

¶20

In the year 1989, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned instructions which are stated to be contrary to the rule that Hindi Stenotypists are required to appear in English Shorthand with speed of 100 words per minute for promotion to the post of Stenographer.

¶21

Thereafter, instructions were issued on 26.12.1989 that shorthand test for promotion of Steno-typist to the post of Stenographer was likely to be held in the end of January, 1990. It was pointed out that Steno-typists who did not take the examination or failed to pass the examination will be ignored for promotion to the post of Stenographers and they will have no claim on the basis of seniority over the officials who will be promoted on the basis of the test.

¶22

The petitioner represented on the ground that at the time of joining the service, this condition was not there and if he had known the same, he may not have joined the department. The petitioner also expressed that it is very difficult for him to learn English Type and Shorthand to pass this test within a short time. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice. The petitioner had then filed this writ petition.

¶23

Mr. Nehra has drawn my attention to the written statement filed in this case. The counsel points out that when this writ petition was filed in the year 1991, the test was introduced only on the basis of

¶24

¶25

Civil Writ No. 13432 of 1991

¶26

executive/administrative instructions but subsequent thereto, the provision has been incorporated in the rule on 13.7.1989. The petitioner thereafter has filed a rejoinder to urge that the posts which were already available prior to amendment of the rules would have to be filled up as per the old position as the amended rule would apply only to the post which become available after amendment of the rules. In support, reliance has been placed in the case titled as Y.V.Rangayya and others Versus J.Sreenivasa Rao and others reported as 1983(1)(S.L.R.789.

¶27

Mr. Nehra contends that though State has not filed any further pleadings to contest the position pleaded in the rejoinder but still respondents can consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in Y.V.Rangayya”s case (supra).

¶28

Accordingly, without going deep into the matter about the controversy raised, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

¶29

Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

September 26,2011 nk

Madan Lal Bansal v. State of Hry. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal Bansal v. State of Hry. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Pb. and Others

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kanwar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohini Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S New Tilak Oil Mills Vs Ut of Chandigarh

C L Kachroo Vs Union of India & Ors.