Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: November 22, 2010
1. C.W.P. No. 3090 of 2010 (O&M)
Hari Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
2. C.W.P. No. 18981 of 2010 (O&M)
Hari Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. S.K. Hooda, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3090 and 18981 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The petitioners, who are working as Watch and Ward Assistants in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, filed C.W.P. No. 3090 of 2010 for declaring Rule 9 (2) of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service Rules, 1981 (for brevity, 'the 1981 Rules') as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, CWP Nos. 3090 & 18981 of 2010 (O&M) 2 alleging that it gives power to the appointing authority to determine the method of recruitment as and when a vacancy arises which affects the promotion avenues of the petitioners. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 31.12.2009 (P-5), appointing Shri Niranjan Singh-respondent No. 3 as Watch and Ward Officer on 89 days basis instead of promoting Shri Hari Singh- petitioner No. 1, who is working as Watch and Ward Assistant since 4.4.1979. The petitioners have further challenged the order dated 4.12.2008 (P-7), appointing Shri Naresh Deswal-respondent No. 4 to the post of Reception Officer instead of promoting the Assistant Reception Officer. Still further, a mandamus has been sought commanding the official respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Watch and Ward Officer, Assistant Reception Officer and Reception Officer as per their seniority. Prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to draw a common seniority of all the Group-C employees working in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and fix a quota for promotion.
3. In the second writ petition, namely, CWP No. 18981 of 2010, the petitioners have sought quashing of Column 3 and 4 of Appendix 'B' of Rule 8 of the Rules relating to the educational qualifications of Watch and Ward Officer along with Rule 9(2) of the Rules. They have also challenged advertisement dated 20.6.2010 (P-2), issued by the Secretary, Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat-respondent No. 3 for filling up the posts of Watch and Ward Officer by direct recruitment. The further prayer is almost identical as already noticed above.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper books with their able assistance. The precise grievance of the petitioners is that sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules gives absolute power to the CWP Nos. 3090 & 18981 of 2010 (O&M) 3 appointing authority to determine the method of recruitment as and when a vacancy arises. Resultantly, whenever any vacancy of the posts of Watch and Ward Officer, Assistant Reception Officer or the Reception Officer arises in the respondent Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, the same is filled up by way of direct appointment instead of promoting the eligible persons like the petitioners. In the written statements filed by the respondents the stand taken is that a proposal has already been sent to the Government proposing amendment in the Rules for fixing 50% posts to be filled up by promotion from amongst Group 'C' employees on rotational basis (Annexure R-1 with CWP No. 3090 of 2010). It is also conceded position that a similar writ petition being C.W.P. No. 12829 of 2010 (Suresh Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others) was filed in this Court by the Watch and Ward Assistants like the present petitioners. The said writ petition has been disposed of by us vide order dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P-5 with CWP No. 18981 of 2010) by observing as under:-
" In any case, the written statement has further stated that the Rules are likely to be amended and there is a proposal to provide exclusive quota for direct recruitment and promotees. In that regard averments have been made in para 6 of the written statement showing that the amendment is pending consideration since 11.08.2009 and last revised draft was received on 07.07.2010. When the matter came up for consideration on 30.09.2010, we ask the learned State counsel to seek instructions as to how much time is likely to be consumed for finalisation of the amendment so that persons belonging to promotees quota may not continue to suffer. In response to the aforesaid directions, the learned State counsel CWP Nos. 3090 & 18981 of 2010 (O&M) 4 has placed on record a copy of letter dated 6.10.2010 stating that the procedure is lengthy and it is likely to take about four months' time.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the amendment in the Rules would take about four months time and the proposal with regard to exclusive quota for promotees and direct recruits is likely to meet the approval of all the authorities. Let the amendment be finalised within six months. At this stage, it is not possible to issue any other direction particularly when the petitioners are not in the zone of consideration being down below in the seniority list."
5. It is obvious that the process of amendment of the Rules is underway and there is a proposal to provide exclusive quota for direct recruitment and promotees, which is likely to meet the approval of all the authorities. This Court has already granted six months time to the respondents for the purpose, vide order dated 7.10.2010 passed in CWP No. 12829 of 2010. We hope and trust that the respondents would complete the process of amendment of Rules within the stipulated time frame fixed by this Court. There is no appointment being made calling for adjudication of the issues.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents themselves are in the process of making amendment in the Rules, we do not feel the necessity to go into and examine the constitutional validity of Rule 9(2) of the Rules and refrain ourselves from issuing any other direction. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move the Court as and when required.
CWP Nos. 3090 & 18981 of 2010 (O&M) 5
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected petition.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI)
November 22, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor