Pooja Chaudhary vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2341

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
Pooja Chaudhary – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 28818 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 03-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondents: Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Hardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate and Ms. Gauri Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition challenging promotion and seniority - Petitioner's promotion denied due to respondent's retrospective promotion and delay in challenging prior orders - The court reiterated importance of promptness in legal challenges - Unexplained delay of 8 years deemed significant and not excused. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Administrative Law - Doctrine of Delay and Laches - Courts consider delay in approaching for relief, eroding rights accrued in favor of other parties - Prompt action is essential for justice. (Paras 10-12)

(C) Employment Law - Rules governing promotions and seniority - Promotions must adhere to existing rules regarding eligibility based on experience and qualifications. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Deputy General Manager (Marketing), challenged the promotion of respondent No.4 to the same post and subsequently to General Manager, citing lack of eligibility and delay in his promotion. (Para 2)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the respondent’s promotions were in accordance with the guidelines, and the petitioner’s delay in challenging the orders from 2009 to 2017 undermined her claim. The court emphasized the need for timely action in judicial proceedings. (Para 12)

Issues: Whether the promotion of respondent No.4 was justified amid the petitioner's claims of seniority and eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner's delay of 8 years in challenging the promotion orders precluded any legal relief, as vital rights had been conferred upon respondent No.4 during that time. (Paras 10-12)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the petitioner's position. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions on promotion eligibility and seniority dynamics. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondent arguments regarding promotion legality. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's examination of promotional timeframes and implications. (Para 7 , 8)
5. issues of delay and principles of laches upheld by the court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
6. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(i) Quashing order dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3 vide which respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of General Manager (Marketing).

(ii) Quashing proceedings of the Administrative Committee of HAFED dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-11) qua Agenda Item No.138/12 against which resolution was passed whereby seniority of the cadre of Additional General Manager (Marketing) was finalized.

(iii) Quashing orders dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 23.01.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3 whereby respondent No.4 stood promoted to the post of Additional General Manager (Marketing) from the post of Deputy General Manager (Marketing) retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 11.01.2005.

(iv) Directing respondents No.1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to the post of General Manager (Marketing) and decide the seniority of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 in the cadre of Additional General Manager (Marketing).

2. Brief facts, which led to the filing of the instant writ petition, are that petitioner herein was appointed as Deputy General Manager (Marketing) in Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.3) on 22.11.2004 against an advertisement issued on 06.02.2002. Respondent No.4, who was working as Sales Officer in respondent No.3, obtained his degree of MBA through distance education mode on 20.11.2000. Vide memo dated 15.01.2003, it was communicated that the post of Sales Officer shall carry the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the qualification for the said post shall be graduation having at least 60% marks with Post Graduate Diploma in Marketing/Sales and at least 1 year practical experience in the field of marketing after acquiring the basic qualifications. On 08.11.2004, the post of Sales Officer was re-designated as Assistant General Manager and respondent No.4 was promoted as Deputy General Manager (Marketing) on 16.12.2004 against the post vacated by one S.C. Malik, who had been promoted as Additional General Manager (Marketing) from the post of Deputy General Manager (Marketing). Thereafter, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 29.12.2004 circulated final seniority list of Deputy General Managers (Marketing) wherein respondent No.4 was placed at the bottom. However, respondent No.4 filed CWP No.19518 of 2005 in this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider and promote him to the post of Additional General Manager (Marketing) from the date he was entitled to, in accordance with the amended Rules of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2005 directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of respondent No.4 by passing a speaking order. In pursuance to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Court, respondent No.3 decided the representation of respondent No.4 by passing a speaking order dated 14.06.2006, holding him ineligible for promotion to the post of Additional General Manager (Marketing) on two counts; firstly, he did not have five years' experience as Deputy General Manager (Marketing) and secondly, he was appointed against the post vacated by S.C. Malik on his promotion to the post of Additional General Manager (Marketing), which promotion stood challenged in CWP No.3369 of 2005 titled as V.K. Sangwan and others v. Hafed and others and show cause notice had been issued to Mr Malik for r