Dismissed

Manjit Singh v. Hy.St.and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CWP/5750/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners seeking promotion benefits under SC reservation policies for services rendered starting 1971 were dismissed due to excessive delay of over 23 years and lack of impleaded respondents whose seniority would be affected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manjit Singh Vs Hy.St.and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.5750 of 1994

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.5750 of 1994

¶5

Manjit Singh

¶6

........ Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

........ Respondents 2. CWP No. 11957 of 1994 Jia Lal ........ Petitioner Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and another

¶10

........ Respondents

¶11

Date of decision: 25.9.2012

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶13

PRESENT: Mr. BS Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP no. 5750 of 1994).

¶14

Mr. RC Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 11957 of 1994).

¶15

Mr. KC Bhatia, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶16

R.P. NAGRATH, J.

¶17

By this common judgment, CWP Nos. 5750 and 11957 of

¶18

1994 are being disposed of as both the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste category and claim seniority in promotion from the year

¶19

CWP No.5750 of 1994 -2-

¶20

1971 against reserved quota. They were posted as Sub Inspectors in the Co-operative Department of Haryana State. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 5750 of 1994.

¶21

Manjit Singh-petitioner joined the Co-operative Department on 4.12.1961, in Joint Punjab and after re-organization of the State, he was allocated to the State of Haryana on 1.11.1966. His name was at serial No. 346 of the Seniority List (Annexure P-1) as on 1.7.1983. The name of Jia Lal-petitioner (in CWP No. 11957 of 1994) is at serial No. 355 of the Seniority List (Annexure P-1), filed in his case.

¶22

The petitioners claim the benefit of Reservation Policy dated 10.12.1971 (Annexure P-4) in promotion, for which the benefit has not been granted to them throughout. Earlier there was the Reservation Policy dated 23.8.1966 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of Punjab which also continued to be applicable on formation of separate State of Haryana. Under the above policy instructions, no benefit in promotion could be granted because reservation in promotion was available to the Departments where there was no direct recruitment. Para 2 of this Policy related to promotion in Class III and Class IV appointments. It says that in the case of Class-III and Class-IV appointments, in grades or services to which there is no direct recruitment, there will be reservation, of 20% for Scheduled Castes/Tribes and 2% for Backward Classes in promotions made by (i) Selection or (ii) on results of competitive examinations limited to departmental candidates. Where, however, there is direct recruitment, the existing percentage of reservation at the time of recruitment would

¶23

CWP No.5750 of 1994 -3-

¶24

continue. So, that reservation was only restricted to the initial recruitments in such cases. There is no dispute that in this Department 1/3^rd of the posts of Inspectors were to be filled by way of direct recruitment.

¶25

However, the Government of Haryana issued a circular letter dated 11.10.1967 (Annexure P-3/R-1), stating that the Government have under consideration the question of modifying the instructions dated 10.8.1967, so that there should be reservation of vacancies irrespective of the fact whether or not promotion is made by selection or on the result of the competitive examination or on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. Government has, therefore decided (as per language of Annexure P-3/ R-1) that pending decision of the said policy, the question of no reservation of members belonging to the Scheduled Caste should be effectual, till further orders, from the posts on which they have been promoted against reserved vacancies, although under the relevant Service Rules, promotions were required to be made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness and for that matter there should have been no such reservation. This decision will, however, not affect the reversions already made as a result of classification given in clause 2(c) in para 1 of the Government letter dated 10.8.1967. Status quo was to be maintained in these cases pending the policy decision.

¶26

Vide instruction dated 10.12.1971 (Annexure P-4/R-2) the reservation in promotion has been provided in all the departments without any restriction as to whether in a department there is a provision of direct recruitment to the said post or not. The following method, therefore, was

¶27

CWP No.5750 of 1994 -4-

¶28

to be adopted for filling up the reserved vacancies by promotion in a block of 100 vacancies:-

¶29

“3-8-13-18-23-28-33-38-43-48-53-58-63-68-73-78-

¶30

83-88-93-98.”

¶31

It is also clarified that every 3^rd vacancy for promotions of 5 should be treated as reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and vacancies occurring at serial Nos. 15 and 75 should be reserved for the Backward Classes.

¶32

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.

¶33

Counsel for Jia Lal-petitioner (in CWP No. 11957 of 1994) during the course of arguments produced the promotion order of Jia Lal dated 05.4.1994 and the same was taken on record.

¶34

Manjit Singh-petitioner (in CWP No. 5750 of 1994) was promoted on 6.7.1993. There is no dispute that 166 Inspectors from the general candidates were promoted during the period of 11.10.1967 to 10.12.1971 while the matter was under consideration of the State Government for final decision on the policy for granting promotions to the reserved candidates. It is contended that based on the reservation policy (Annexure P-4/R-2) 33 posts were belonging to the reserved candidates and the petitioner in CWP No. 5750 of 1994 would have been adjusted at vacancy No. 137 and Jia Lal-petitioner in CWP No. 11957 of 1994 at vacancy position No. 140 out of the above 166 promotions. However, not even a single promotion was given to the reserved candidates in the said promotions.

¶35

CWP No.5750 of 1994 -5-

¶36

These writ petitions were filed after more than 23 years of the accrual of the cause of action based on the instruction of the year 1971 (Annexure P-4/R-2). Solely on the ground of delay for such a long period and laches on the part of petitioners this Court would refuse to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. The whole seniority list existing during 23 years before the filing of these petitions, would be un-settled if the relief claimed by the petitioners is accepted.

¶37

There is even no allegation that any vacancy was existing after filling up of 166 posts of Inspectors during the period from 11.10.1967 to 10.12.1971, against which the petitioners could be considered and adjusted. Such an exercise would also result in bringing down the seniority of those already promoted during all these years up to the filing of these writ petitions. That is not possible without impleading those affected, as the necessary respondents.

¶38

It also not a contention of the petitioners that any official junior to them was ever promoted, giving them immediate right to seek benefit of the aforesaid instructions. The promotion order dated 5.4.1994, of Jia Lal-petitioner (in CWP No. 11957 of 1994) placed on record would show that 6 candidates in the reserved category were promoted out of total 10 candidates. The Backward Class candidates are at serial Nos. 298, 354, 396 and Scheduled Caste candidates at Nos. 348, 350 and 355 (Jia Lal-petitioner) in the seniority list as it stood on 1.7.1983. Four candidates from the General Category at serial Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the promotion order were at serial Nos. 271, 274, 277 and

¶39

CWP No.5750 of 1994 -6-

¶40

279 of the seniority list. This shows that the benefit of reservation is being extended at Roster points.

¶41

The interesting part is that in the list (Annexure P-1) the name of Manjit-petitioner (in CWP No. 5750 of 1994) falls in seniority at 37 and, therefore, 36 candidates of the reserved category were senior to him. There is no averment as to when those 36 persons were promoted and whether any grievance was raised by any of those persons claiming seniority at Roster point with effect from the year 1971. The name of Jia Lal-petitioner (in CWP No. 11957 of 1994), however, is at serial No. 44 of the seniority list (Annexure P-1) and 43 persons of the reserved category are above him.

¶42

Both the writ petitions are thus found without merit. Such a prayer even would not be granted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction after expiry of 23 years of the instructions, under which the benefit is claimed, without making the affected persons as necessary respondents.

¶43

Dismissed.

¶44

September 25, 2012 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Manjit Singh v. Hy.St.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manjit Singh v. Hy.St.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Kumar Gupta and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chamel Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jia Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mandhir Bajaj Vs Vice Chancellor and Ors.

Kailash Rani Vs State of Punjab