Petitioner sought quashing of promotion orders of reserved-category respondents and consequential promotion/seniority as Head Clerk/Superintendent. The State stated petitioner was already promoted as Head Clerk (1999) and Superintendent (2003) and had retired. Petition disposed of as infructuous, no cause surviving.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.14994 of 1999 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
212
CWP No.14994 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.08.2024
Niranjan Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Amrindra Pratap Singh, Advocate for Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
(i) a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 18-8-1998, 4-10-1998 and 1-10-1999 (Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/5); with all consequential service benefits;
(ii) a writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsauthorities to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Superintendent with effect from the date his juniors were promoted;
(iii) an appropriate writ, order or direction that the respondents No.7 to 9 have no right to hold the post of Superintendent, particularly when they were not eligible for lower post of Head Clerk;
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CWP No.14994 of 1999 (O&M)
2
(iv) a writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsauthorities to revise the seniority list of the employees including the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondents No.4 to 9;
OR
(v) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case, be also issued;
(vi) service of advance notices upon the Respondents as required under the writ Rules, be dispensed with;
(vii) filing of certified copies of Annexures P/1 to P/5 be exempted.
(viii) writ petition be allowed with costs in favour of the petitioner.”
has been averred as under:-
“2. That in the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the promotion of private respondents of Reserved Category and claiming his promotion as Head Clerk/ Superintendent. In this regard, it is submitted that the private respondents were promoted as Head Clerk/ Superintendent from their respective cadre as per Annexure R-I.
It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was also considered to the post of Head Clerk in the year 1998 along with his seniors, but he was not promoted because a charge sheet under Rule 7 was pending against him. The petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk on 3.12.99 after the decision of charge sheet under Rule 7. All the private respondents had been promoted as Head Clerk/ Superintendent prior to 3.12.99 when the petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk. Hence, the petitioner could not
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CWP No.14994 of 1999 (O&M)
3
be considered for promotion of Superintendent along with the private respondents. It is necessary to mention here that the there are 15 candidates namely sary Shri Jagmal Singh, Harish Chander, Ranjit Singh, Nanak Chand, Ram Chander Sehzada, Smt. Gobind Kaur, Sarv Sh. Diwan Chand Kataria, Arjun Dev Chawla, Sada Nand, RamJi Lal, Sohan Lal, Hoshiar Singh, Hawa Singh, Roshan Lal, Santosh Kumar of general category who are senior to the petitioner as clerk and are still working as Head Clerk. Hence, there is no question to promote the petitioner as Superintendent prior to seniors. In view of this the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”
In this view of the matter, no cause survives in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
| (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| 08.08.2024 yakub |
||
| Whether speaking/reasoned: | Yes/No | |
| Whether reportable: | Yes/No |
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.09 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Niranjan Lal
State of Haryana and others
Namit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
