IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Nitin Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6143 of 2020
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Mandamus - Promotion - The Punjab Jails Department, Class III (Executive Staff) Rules, 1963 - Rule 7(3)(iii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Sub-Assistant Superintendent under 25% quota of Clerk-cumWarder as per Rule 7(3)(iii) of The Punjab Jails Department, Class III (Executive Staff) Rules, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner is not the senior most clerk eligible for promotion and that the Government has taken a conscious decision not to promote Sub-Assistant Superintendents Jail from the cadre of clerks. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not provide material to establish the availability of posts for promotion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, not being the senior most clerk, could seek a writ of mandamus to promote him, especially when the Government had decided not to promote Sub-Assistant Superintendents Jail from the cadre of clerks.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's claim for promotion was not supported by the law and that the Government's decision was not arbitrary or illegal, thus not warranting judicial interference.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court held that the Government's decision was not arbitrary or illegal, and the employer had the liberty to amend the Service Rules.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Sub-Assistant Superintendent under 25% quota of Clerk-cumWarder as per Rule 7(3)(iii) of The Punjab Jails Department, Class III (Executive Staff) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1963 Rules").
2. In the considered view of this Court, the question which arises for consideration is "If as per the Service Rules, the promotion to a post is provided from multiple feeder cadres with a fixed quota from each feeder cadre, whether an employee of one of the feeder cadre can seek a writ of mandamus to promote him, even after the Government has taken a conscious decision to abolish the avenues of promotion from that specific feeder cadre, particularly when he is not the senior most employee in that feeder cadre and the process for amending the Service Rules is at an advanced stage?"
3. Some facts are required to be noticed. The petitioner joined as Jail Warder on 12.09.2003. He was selected and consequently promoted as Clerk on 11.02.2010, against the quota meant for direct recruitment. Subsequently, the petitioner was reverted, however, the Government took a decision to regularize the promotion of the petitioner as Clerk w.e.f. 24.09.2015. The petitioner now prays for direction to consider his case for further promotion to the post of Sub-Assistant Superintendent.
4. A detailed written statement has been filed and it has been pointed out that there are two separate cadres in the Jails of the State of Haryana. The first is 'Ministerial Cadre' which starts from Clerk, Assistant/Accountant, Deputy Superintendent (Office) and Superintendent (Office). The second is 'Executive Cadre' which starts from Warder, Head Warder, Sub Assistant Superintendent Jail, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Deputy Superintendent Jail and Superintendent Jail. A pictorial diagram prepared by the respondents is extracted as under:-
5. The employees of the Ministerial Cadre are governed by the Punjab Jails Department, Clerical and Technical (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1962 Rules"). It may be noted here that the pay-scales of the posts of Warder and Clerk is the same. However, there is a provision for Warders to be promoted to the post of Clerk in Clerical Cadre under Sub-Rule (d) of Rule 9(2) Part-B of the Rules, which is extracted as under:-
"(i) by promotion from amongst Warders and Class-IV employees who are matriculates and have five years experience; provided that such promotions do not exceed 20 percent."
6. To govern the service conditions of the employee of executive cadre, 'the 1963 Rules' have been notified. Rule 7 thereof, reads as under:-
"7. Method of appointment-appointments to the posts in the Service shall be made as under:-
(3)- In the case of Sub Assistant Superintendent:-
(i) by promotion from amongst the Assistant Probation Officers, Head Warders and Warders who have an experience of working on the Warder staff for a minimum period of three years and who have passed the Matriculation or Higher Secondary or any other equivalent examination from a recognized university, or
(ii) by promotion from amongst clerks of the Department having an experience of working on the post of clerk for a minimum period of five years.
(iii) by promotion from Clerks/Warders of the Department who have combined experience for a minimum period of five years in the clerical and Warders line (including not less than two years in the Warders line)'
Provided that not less than 50 percent of the posts will be filled in the manner specified in sub-clause (i) and 25 percent each in the manner specified in sub-clause (ii) and (iii)."
7. On careful reading of Rule 7, it is apparent that for promotion to the post of Sub-Assistant Superintendent Jail, there are three feeder cad
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.