Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in December, 1981. He was matriculate and has passed 02 years diploma course in Fitter Trade. The plaintiff claimed to be eligible for promotion as Workshop Instructor on 2 of 14 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062659 RSA Nos.2309 and 3905 of 1999 (O&M) the basis of his qualification and experience whereas defendant No.4 - Jai Parkash, who came to be recruited as Electrician in the year 1983, was promoted as Workshop Instructor vide order dated 07.01.1991, ignoring the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged his promotion with further declaration that he is entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 07.01.1991 i.e. the date when defendant No.4 - Jai Parkash, was promoted. It was also alleged in the suit that Sh. R.S. Mehta, the then, Principal, was inimical towards the plaintiff/appellant, therefore, he was ignored.

In this view of the matter, the plaintiff, who was senior to defendant No.4 in length of service, should have been promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor on the date person junior to him was promoted. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor from the date defendant No.4 was promoted. Consequently, the findings arrived at by learned trial court on issue No.1 and 2 are affirmed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that both the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below suffer from infirmity as according to Haryana Technical Education Department, Technical Field Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998, promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor entails 05 years experience in the respective trade whereas the plaintiff was a Laboratory Attendant which is totally different from an Electrician to be promoted as Workshop Instructor.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In the present case (RSA No.3905 of 1999) operation of the impugned judgment was stayed vide order dated 11.08.1999 and later on, matter was admitted on 04.10.2000.

10. Admittedly, both the learned Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is senior to defendant No.4 - Jai Parkash as the plaintiff joined the service in the year 1981 and whereas defendant No. 4 joined the services in the year 1983. It has also been recorded by both the learned Courts below that the plaintiff was arbitrarily discriminated when his junior was promoted as Workshop 8 of 14 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062659 RSA Nos.2309 and 3905 of 1999 (O&M) Instructor w.e.f. 07.01.1991. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the State on 'Haryana Technical Education Department, Technical Field Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998', is totally mis-conceived as the position is to be seen as on 07.01.1991, when his junior defendant No.4 was promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor. It has been recorded by both the learned Courts below that as per letter dated 13.03.1990 (Ex.P-1), it was clearly directed by the Director, Technical Education, Haryana, to various Institutes to recommend the names of subordinate employees for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor having requisite qualification as mentioned in the said letter. Concededly, the plaintiff/appellant is a matriculate and also holds I.T.I. certificate in Fitter Trade as per documents (Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8). It is also clear from the documents (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-18), that Laboratory Attendants, who are matriculate will fall under Class III category and not under Class IV category and the plaintiff/appellant being senior to defendant No.4, fulfilled the requisite qualification and experience for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor as per Administrative Instructions Ex.P-1 and these Instructions are applicable to the plaintiff's case and the draft rules relied by the defendants were not enforced and finally the same have been finalized in the year 1998.