CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14170 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: JULY 29, 2010

Rann Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,

for the State.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Aggrieved against the action of the respondents to

withdraw the promotion granted to the petitioner, he has filed the

present writ petition to challenge the order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure

P-9) in this regard.

The petitioner belongs to a Saini caste and was

appointed as Clerk under Ex-gratia Scheme on 6.10.1987. Being

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14170 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }:

from backward class, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for

promotion on a roster point reserved for backward classes.

As per letter issued by the respondent Department on

6.1.1998, it was clarified that 10^th roster point with the respondent-

Department was reserved for promotion quota for B.C candidate. As

revealed in the petition, the respondent had earlier, while filing

response in another writ petition, had assured this Court that the post

of Assistant in the promotion quota i.e. the 10^th point in the roster

belongs to backward class and whenever the respondents would

decide to fill the same, it will be given to eligible and suitable

backward class candidate.

The State Government had decided to discontinue the

reservation policy for B.C candidates but still, through its letter dated

26.2.1999, it was clarified that short fall of backward classes existing

prior to 15.11.1997 would be given to eligible persons from the

backward class. The Chief Secretary also issued instructions on

25.2.2000 addressed to all the Head of Departments that the roster

point vacancy existing prior to 15.11.1997 can be filled up

retrospectively by promoting the backward class candidates in

respect of such vacancies. On the basis of such policy instructions,

the petitioner was promoted as a Assistant on 18.1.2000.

Though the petitioner was promoted, but he filed a

representation on 9.11.2000, objecting to a proforma promotion given

to one Balak Ram vide order dated 18.1.2000. This representation

was considered and respondent No.2 came to conclude that Balak

Ram was not entitled to be appointed as a Clerk and as such, could

not have been given proforma promotion as Assistant against the

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14170 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }:

reserved vacancy meant for backward class category. The petitioner

being the next man in the seniority list, thus, deserved to be

promoted on roster point No.10 caused by the retirement of one

Kishori Lal on 30.6.1995. After examining the relevant Rules and

record, respondent No.2 ordered retrospective promotion of the

petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1995 against roster point No.10 meant for

backward class category vide order dated 3.9.2001. This position

continued for nearly 8 years, when suddenly on 22.4.2009, the

petitioner was issued a show cause notice for withdrawing the

promotion granted to him as Assistant against the roster point w.e.f.

1.7.1995. It was now proposed to promote the petitioner w.e.f.

26.8.2003 on the ground that the State Government had

discontinued the reservation policy in promotion to the backward

classes w.e.f. 16.11.1997 and, thus, the retrospective promotion

w.e.f. 1.7.1995 as ordered on 3.9.2001 was bad in the eyes of law.

The objection-cum-reply filed by the petitio