The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure P16) whereby the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. A direction has been sought to the respondents to prepare inter se seniority of Junior Scale Stenographer, Assistant Librarian, Steno typist, Clerk-cum-Store Keeper, Accounts Clerk-cum-Junior Auditor (in clerk grade) as per Service Rules of 1997 and promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant w.e.f. the date when their junior, namely, Rekha (since deceased) was promoted to the post of Assistant vide order dated 23.09.1998 (Annexure P6) along with all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% p.a.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire process of promotion undertaken by the respondents is vitiated by arbitrariness and non-compliance with the statutory provisions governing service matters since the promotion of Ms. Rekha (since deceased) to the post of Assistant on 23.09.1998, without first drawing up an inter-se seniority list as mandated by Rule 5 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Promotion of Stenographers and Steno- Typists) Rules, 1961 (in short, the 1961 Rules) is patently illegal and contrary to the settled service jurisprudence as the rule, being made applicable to the State of Haryana, requires strict adherence to seniority and eligibility criteria among Steno-Typists, Junior Scale Stenographers, and Clerks for their promotion to the cadre of Assistant.

(3). Counsel further asserts that the illegality of said promotion stands admitted and established through the subsequent advice rendered by the Chief Secretary, Haryana, vide letter dated 09.06.1999, whereby it was categorically observed that Satish Chander was senior to Ms. Rekha and that his claim for promotion had been wrongfully overlooked and in compliance with this advice, said Satish Chander was promoted with retrospective effect from the date of Rekha’s promotion, thereby acknowledging the breach in the original order.

(4). It is urged that despite repeated representations by the petitioner and the clear advice from the highest administrative offices, the respondents, instead of correcting the earlier wrong, have continued to shield the patently illegal promotion, even justifying it in subsequent departmental communications and rejecting the petitioner’s lawful claim on 14.12.2017 (Annexure P16). It is further argued that the refusal to remedy this manifest injustice, as well as the non-response to the petitioner’s legal notice dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure P17), reveals the nonchalant, non-speaking, and mechanical approach adopted by the respondents.

(5). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the process of promotion to the post of Assistant in the department has been strictly governed by the Haryana Women and Child Development Department (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997 (in short, the 1997 Rules), and not under the previously cited 1961 Rules and as per Appendix B to Rule 7, Serial No.8 of the 1997 Rules, the essential qualification and experience for promotion to Assistant-cum-Accountant-Cashier-Junior Auditor requires either two years’ experience as a Junior Scale Stenographer/Assistant Librarian or five years' experience as a Steno-Typist, Clerk-cum-Store Keeper-cum-Accounts Clerk-cum-Junior Auditor in the clerk grade.

(6). It is fu