Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms. Rajni Pawar vs Financial ... on 24 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16349 of 2012
Date of decision: 24th August, 2012
Ms. Rajni Pawar
Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. R.S. Panghal, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation on 3rd August, 2004 as a Junior Engineer (hereinafter referred to as, 'JE'). At the time of joining, the petitioner was holding a Degree in Engineering i.e. BE. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the policy of the respondent, 12½ % quota is reserved for the JEs against the vacancies of Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred to as, 'AE'), who fulfill twin conditions i.e. Degree in Engineering and completion of three years of service. It is the further case of the petitioner that she became eligible for promotion to the post of AE on completion of three years of service i.e. 3rd August, 2007. The name of the petitioner was duly entered into the ranking list for promotion to the post of AE. The ranking list of AMIE/Degree-holders for the period ending 25th February, 2010 was circulated and the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.19 of the said list. Since the petitioner was duly eligible, she was promoted against the available vacant post of AE on 3rd March, 2010 vide Annexure P-3. Thereafter, the petitioner has been serving on the post of AE for the last 2 ½ Civil Writ Petition No.16349 of 2012 2 years. However, petitioner was shocked to receive a fresh seniority list dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure P-5) alongwith a notice dated 23rd July, 2012 (Annexure P-4) asking to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be reverted back to the post of JE on the basis of seniority list (Annexure P-5) circulated by the respondent.
It is further the case of the petitioner that she submitted her reply vide Annexure P-6 to the said notice. However, the said seniority list and the notice (Annexures P-5 and P-4 respectively) have not been withdrawn and thus, the action of the respondents in circulating a new seniority list as well as notice of reversion of the petitioner from the post of AE to that of JE is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and being violative to the Constitution of India and deserves to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the prescribed rules, the petitioner was duly eligible for promotion to the post of AE with effect from 3rd August, 2007 on completing three years' service as JE and thus, was correctly placed in the seniority list of 25th February, 2010 and was promoted vide order dated 3rd March, 2010 as per her seniority in accordance with law. It is submitted that thus, the notice of reversion (Annexure P-4) and the fresh seniority list (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, especially in view of the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted vide order dated 24th July, 2012 (Annexure P-8) and therefore, the notice (Annexure P-4) and seniority list (Annexure P-5) are liable to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned notice/seniority list (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively) and the other documents placed on record of this case.
Civil Writ Petition No.16349 of 2012 3
A perusal of the notice (Annexure P-4) for reversion of the petitioner would show that some of the JEs who had served with the Defence Staff and had obtained their Degrees from Indian Air Force/Indian Navy, were held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of AE considering their Diploma coupled with the ten years experience as equivalent to the Degree of Engineering by a judgment of this Court, against which LPA and SLP filed by the department had already been dismissed. In fact, such defence personnel had filed contempt petition wherein a direction has been given to the respondent-department to give them deemed promotion from the date their juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.
The aforesaid facts are not in dispute.
It may further be noticed here that in order to comply with the said judgment, a fresh final ranking list (Annexure P-5) was issued notifying the objections and despite the fact that the petitioner received the notice and the ranking list, she chose not to file any objections to the ranking list so circulated meaning thereby that she had no objection to the said revised ranking list. After disposal of the objections received against the said ranking list, the same was finalized placing the petitioner at Sr. No.20, as a consequence of which the petitioner became ineligible for promotion to the post of AE on 3rd March, 2010 to make room for the seniors for promotion to the post of AE.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the date of eligibility for promotion of the petitioner in the revised ranking list has been wrongly written with effect from 1st January, 2008, whereas she was eligible for bringing her name on the ranking list on completion of three years of service as JE i.e. on 3rd August, Civil Writ Petition No.16349 of 2012 4 2007. The said argument is again without any merit in view of Clause (iii) of the office order No.168/REG-21/L-II dated 20th October, 1993 (Annexure P-1), which reads thus:
"(iii) The ranking list of Engineering subordinates for their promotion as AE, shall normally be prepared on 1st day of January of each year and duly notified to all concerned. The name(s) of the eligible candidate(s) in the ranking list will be entered strictly from the date the official fulfills, both the conditions i.e. passing of AMIE/BE examination and completion of 5 years service of engineering subordinates. If two or more officials fulfill both the conditions on the same date, the names in the ranking list will be entered in accordance with their original seniority in the Engineering subordinates."
Faced with the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has half-heartedly argued that vide Annexure P-8, many persons junior to the petitioner, such as Baldev Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Jai Bhagwan and Khem Raj etc. have been promoted to the post of AE and thus, the notice (Annexure P-4) for reversion issued to the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
It may be noticed that though the petitioner has placed on record promotion order (Annexure P-8) and has also raised an argument as noticed above, however, no factual foundation has been laid before this Court in this regard. Even the aforesaid persons, who are stated to be junior to the petitioner, have not been arrayed as respondents. Moreover, the petitioner has not laid any material before this Court to establish that the aforesaid persons have also been promoted in the category of Engineering Subordinates under 12½ % quota. Furthermore, in the final ranking list of JEs (Annexure P-5), the persons mentioned at Sr. No.2 to 5 in Annexure P-8 have been shown senior to the petitioner.
Civil Writ Petition No.16349 of 2012 5
Thus, in view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE August 24, 2012 rps