Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Punjab Mandi Board And Ors on 20 November, 2014
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Harinder Singh Sidhu
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-3530-CWP-2014
in CWP-1915-2012
Date of Decision: November 20, 2014
Kuldeep Singh
'Applicant - Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Mandi Board and others
'Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: - Mr.N.S.Kandhola, Advocate
for the applicant - petitioner.
Mr.G.S.Harika, Advocate
for respondent - Board.
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
This is an application for early hearing.
After hearing counsel for the parties, application is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for hearing.
CWP-1915-2012 :
The petitioner was appointed as a Maintenance Mechanic to handle the Mechanical Handling Units by the respondent - Punjab Mandi Board in the year 1991 (Annexure P-1).
On 3.12.2002, a decision was taken by respondent - Board to dispose of the Mechanical Handling Units. In furtherance thereto, the Board informed the Market Committees vide letter dated CWP-1915-2012(O&M) [2] 7.3.2003 (Annexure P-2) to adjust the staff of the Mechanical Handling Units in the Board or the Market Committees after receiving the options from the employees and keeping in view their educational qualifications. Thereafter, in the letter dated 22.8.2003 (Annexure P-
3), written by the Board to the Market Committee, Kharar, it was mentioned that the basic pay of the mechanics is equivalent to the clerks/pump operators of Market Committees. It was further mentioned that option be taken from the employees where the post of clerk/pump operator is vacant and they be accordingly adjusted.
In the light of the above instructions, the petitioner gave his option for the post of clerk on 18.6.2003 vide Annexure P-4. Consequent upon the exercise of option by the petitioner, the Market Committee, Kharar passed a resolution dated 15.7.2003 (Annexure P-
6) recommending the adjustment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk. As per the statutory requirements, this resolution was sent to respondent No.2 for approval.
However, despite the petitioner sending repeated requests to respondent No.2, no formal approval was accorded.
The petitioner filed CWP No.22504 of 2011 praying for a direction to the respondents to grant approval for adjustment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk in the Market Committee, Kharar. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-10) and respondents No.1 and 2 were directed to consider the representation ( Annexure P-7 ) of the CWP-1915-2012(O&M) [3] petitioner in view of the policy as well as the order passed in the case of similarly situated employees, namely, Gurdev Singh and Malhara Singh.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure P-11) stating that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualification for the post of Clerk and thus, he was adjusted on the vacant post of Sewadar in the Market Committee, Kurali as he fulfilled the qualification for the said post. It is this order, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.
In the impugned order, reference has been made to the notification dated 10.2.2009 issued by the Punjab Government, wherein, the following educational qualification has been prescribed for the post of Clerk:-
"1. Should be graduate from recognized University or Institutions.
2. had passed Course along with minimum 120 hours work in use of personal computer or information technology in office productivity application or Desktop Publishing Applications from any Institution recognized by any Govt. or famous Institution which is approved by ISO 9001.
OR 'O' Level Certificate from Electronics Eradication of CWP-1915-2012(O&M) [4] Computer Course of Govt. of India, Course of Computer Information Technology."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the qualification, which is required to be considered in the case of the petitioner is not the qualification as amended and mentioned vide notification of the year 2009 (quoted above), but the qualification as it existed in the year 2002 when the Mechanical Handling Units were disbanded and the decision was taken to adjust its employees in the Market Committees/ Board.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified as the decision was taken in the year 2002 to adjust the staff of the Mechanical Handling Units on equivalent posts, as per the-then existing rules. Any rules, made subsequent to the said rules ought not to have been taken into consideration while adjusting the employees of the disbanded units.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 - Board to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his adjustment on the post of Clerk in the Market Committee in terms of the qualification for the said post, as the same existed in the year 2002 when the Mechanical Handling Units were disbanded.
November 20, 2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
gian JUDGE
GIANENDER KUMAR
2014.11.25 13:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document