Dismissed¶31

Jagwant Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025LPA/1321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M), decided 08.05.2025, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J. (oral) with Meenakshi I. Mehta J. Jagwant Malik and others v. The State of Haryana and others. Keywords: VEI cadre; Vocational Education Instructor; Vocational Education Scheme 1983; notification 11.06.2008; office order 26.10.2017; absorption in ITI Department; separate channel of promotion; letter 18.07.2007/07.08.2007; inter se seniority; promotion to Vice Principal/Principal Group-B/Group-A; Joint Director (Technical) affidavit 06.03.2024; CWP No.29379 of 2018; Single Judge order 10.03.2025; delay of 22 days condoned; appeal dismissed; claim misconceived.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed and pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of ¶31

Jagwant Malik and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed and pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ-petitioners (now appellants), who were members of the ITI Department before the erstwhile Vocational Education Instructors were absorbed, had a superior right to claim promotion to the posts of Vice Principal/Principal over and above the concerned Vocational Education Instructors. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The two classes being different and having no similar posts are to be treated differently; the claim raised by the appellants is misconceived and without any basis.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

All throughout, the VEI cadre has been treated separately in the ITI Department and, as per the letter dated 18.07.2007/07.08.2007, a separate channel of promotion was made available for VEIs.

¶26

Key takeaways

The respondents were promoted against the vacant posts of Principal Group-B and were not promoted on the post of Principal Group-A.ratio¶26
The order impugned in the writ-petition dated 18.10.2018 was clarified by the affidavit filed by the Joint Director (Technical) dated 06.03.2024.ratio¶26
It cannot be said that all the posts of Principals have been filled up by the VEI cadre.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M) dismissed (08.05.2025, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.), upholding the learned Single Judge's order dated 10.03.2025 in CWP No.29379 of 2018 which had rejected the writ-petitioners' challenge to the manner of consideration for promotion to Vice Principal/Principals Group-B/Group-A of Instructors of Vocational Education Institutes absorbed in the ITI. The Division Bench held that the VEI cadre has throughout been treated separately in the ITI Department with its own promotion channel (letter dated 18.07.2007/07.08.2007); that there is no inter se seniority lis between the VEI cadre and the appellants' cadre and the promotion channels are separate; that the respondents were promoted only against vacant Principal Group-B posts, the position having been clarified by the Joint Director (Technical)'s affidavit dated 06.03.2024, so it cannot be said all Principal posts were filled by the VEI cadre; and that, the absorption never having been challenged by the appellants, the two dissimilar classes are to be treated differently, the appellants' claim being misconceived and without basis. Delay of 22 days in filing was condoned (CM No.3239-LPA of 2025); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

136

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

¶4

Jagwant Malik and others

¶5

…Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Haryana and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.23-Caveator.

¶12

¶13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶14

CM No.3239-LPA of 2025

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶16

LPA No.1321 of 2025

¶17

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2025 in CWP No.29379 of 2018 , whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ-petition preferred by the writpetitioners assailing the method and manner by which the Instructors, belonging to Vocational Education Institutes who had been absorbed in the ITI, have been considered for promotion to the post of Vice

¶18

NEETU RANI 2025.05.16 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶19

LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M) -2-

¶20

Principals/Principals Group-B/Principals Group-A.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writpetitioners were the members of the ITI Department before the concerned respondents, who were erstwhile Vocational Education Instructors in the Education Department, had been absorbed. They should have been placed at the lowest in cadre and on account of them being kept in a separate cadre, they have further chances of promotion to the post of Vice Principal/ Principal whereas the petitioners are being deprived. Learned counsel also submits that learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting their writ-petition as the petitioners had a superior right to claim promotion over and above the concerned Vocational Education Instructors.

¶22

We find that the learned Single Judge has noticed that the respondent-Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training introduced Vocational Education Scheme in 1983 and recruitment of Vocational Instructors was made therein. Pursuant to the notification dated 11.06.2008, the Scheme was transferred to the Secondary Education Department. However, the staff of Vocational Education Scheme along-with their posts was to be transferred/adjusted among different Departments. Some staff members were transferred to Secondary Education Department while some others were sent to the Technical Education Department and the remaining were retained in the ITI Department under a separate Vocational Education Instructor cadre (here-in-after to be referred as ‘VEI cadre’). Learned Single Judge has also noticed that pursuance to the notification dated 11.06.2008 (supra), the office order was issued on 26.10.2017,

¶23

NEETU RANI 2025.05.16 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶24

LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M) -3-

¶25

whereby various posts of VE Scheme under the incumbents working in VEIs were finally transferred to the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training wherein certain terms and conditions were laid down as noticed in the order.

¶26

We find, that all throughout the VEI cadre has been treated separately in the ITI Department and as per the letter dated 18.07.2007/ 07.08.2007, separate channel of promotion was made available for VEIs to the post of Vice Principal to be re-designated as Principal (Class II) and norms were also laid down as one post per Institute for VEIs. Similarly for ITIs, Principals and Vice Principals, one each of the Institutes having strength of 400, was provided for the purpose of cadre strength of Principal/ Vice Principal. The respondents were promoted against the vacant posts of Principal Group-B and they were not promoted on the post of Principal Group-A and those, who were posted against the vacant post of Principal Group-A, were not to get any benefit and continued to get the benefit of holding of Principal Group-B alone. The order impugned in the writ-petition dated 18.10.2018, therefore, seems to have been clarified by the affidavit filed by the Joint Director (Technical) dated 06.03.2024 and it cannot be said that all the posts of Principals have been filled up by the VEI cadre.

¶27

The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants also found to be without basis. We notice that so far as the cadre of present appellants is concerned, it is separate and there is no inter se seniority lis between the VEI cadre and the cadre of the appellants. The channel of promotion is also separate. We also notice that when the VEI cadre was

¶28

NEETU RANI 2025.05.16 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶29

LPA No.1321 of 2025 (O&M) -4-

¶30

found and the persons had been absorbed in the Department, the same was not under challenge by the appellants. In these circumstances, they cannot be said to claim posts on which the respondents, who belong to VEI cadre, have been promoted.

¶31

In view thereto, the classes being two different, having no similar posts are to be treated differently and the claim raised by the appellants is found to be misconceived and without any basis. The order passed by learned Single Judge, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶33

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶34

08.05.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶36

NEETU RANI 2025.05.16 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.29379 of 2018 dismissing the writ petition challenging the method and manner by which Instructors of Vocational Education Institutes absorbed in the ITI were considered for promotion to Vice Principal/Principals Group-B/Principals Group-A¶17
Single Judge, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh · 10.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Application CM No.3239-LPA of 2025 allowed; delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal condoned¶15
Prior proceeding
Writ-petitioners (now appellants) had preferred CWP No.29379 of 2018 assailing the method and manner by which Instructors of Vocational Education Institutes absorbed in the ITI were considered for promotion¶17
Prior proceeding
Respondent-Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training introduced the Vocational Education Scheme in 1983 with recruitment of Vocational Instructors¶22
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to notification dated 11.06.2008 the Scheme was transferred to the Secondary Education Department¶22
Prior proceeding
Staff of the VE Scheme distributed among different Departments; the remaining retained in the ITI Department under a separate Vocational Education Instructor ('VEI') cadre¶22
Prior proceeding
Office order issued on 26.10.2017 pursuant to the notification dated 11.06.2008¶22
Prior proceeding
Various posts of VE Scheme under the incumbents working in VEIs finally transferred to the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training, with terms and conditions laid down¶25
Prior proceeding
Per letter dated 18.07.2007/07.08.2007 a separate channel of promotion was made available for VEIs to the post of Vice Principal to be re-designated as Principal (Class II)¶26
Prior proceeding
Norms laid down: one post per Institute for VEIs; for ITIs, one Principal and one Vice Principal each for Institutes having strength of 400, for cadre-strength purposes¶26
Prior proceeding
Respondents (VEI cadre) were promoted against the vacant posts of Principal Group-B and not on the post of Principal Group-A¶26
Prior proceeding
The order impugned in the writ-petition was dated 18.10.2018; it was clarified by the affidavit filed by the Joint Director (Technical) dated 06.03.2024¶26

Jagwant Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagwant Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others Vs Sakshi Malik and Others

Radhey Shyam and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sadhu Ram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Roshan Grag Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Chandigarh

Davendra Kumar Dhama Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Monika Choudhary Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others