Punjab-Haryana High Court
P. K. Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 January, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 1234 of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1234 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision January 10, 2011
P. K. Sharma
....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G. S. Hooda, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The challenge in the writ petition is a denial of promotion to the petitioner from the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer to Environmental Engineer in the department of Haryana State Pollution Control Board. His case was taken up in January, 2004 along with two others and while denying to the petitioner a favourable consideration, it was stated that as per the draft service rules which were applied in all cases of promotion, he held the post as Assistant Environmental Engineer for eight years and although he fulfilled the criterion on experience, he did not fulfill the qualification for promotion to the post, being only a diploma holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to the fact that the Pollution Control Board was applying the draft CWP No. 1234 of 2011(O&M) 2 rules till it was finalized in the later part of the year 2004 and at the time when the petitioner's case was considered in January, 2004, as per the draft rules even a person with a diploma was entitled to consideration provided he had 10 years service. The draft rules are before Court which reads to the above effect. The petitioner also cites two other instances where diploma holders with 10 years experience had been granted promotion as Environmental Engineers in the posts when the draft rules were taken as a guidance for applying promotion and till when the rules were finalized. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the denial but this Court had directed an order to be passed and when such an order was passed directing the petitioners entitlement, the writ petition is filed challenging the order.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that when a consideration was to be taken again, the rules had been already finalized and as per the finalized rules, the educational qualification for promotion was engineering degree and the petitioner being a diploma holder was not entitled to consideration. The final order which is passed and which is impugned must be read in continuance with the decision taken in January, 2004. The latter reasoning that he did not fulfill the qualification, being a diploma holder admittedly is erroneous, for, under the draft service regulation the qualification for promotion included a diploma holders with 10 years experience as eligible for consideration.
3. Counsel for the respondents points out that disciplinary action was pending against the petitioner at that time but I find the reference to disciplinary action as pending in the order of January, 2004,was itself erroneous, for, the same order subsequently referred to the fact that punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect had been imposed and at the time when the consideration for promotion was taken, there was no bar for consideration who had CWP No. 1234 of 2011(O&M) 3 undergone a minor penalty.
4. The impugned order is erroneous for the reasons stated above and it is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion and an appropriate order be passed with all monetary benefits. A decision shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 10, 2012 archana