Smt. Rekha Rahi v. State Of Haryana And Others
! "
#$ %&'# ( '( ''
#& ****
! " #
$ % "&
$ ' (#) *
)
$ + () *# + , -. ,-.
&
# /
* # %%0 1
2 / /
3 * 45 %4-7, 8 %-. 9 $ %:
##
1 #( /
9
;
< # * =
*
#
# / ## 3 # 9
,%.
The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, joined as Steno-typist in the respondent-Board on 01.03.1993. The services of the petitioner were governed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Group A, B, C & D Service Regulations, 1996. The State Government had framed reservation policy dated 09.02.1979 which provided 20% reservation for promotion of employees belonging to Scheduled Caste category. As per
- 2 - reservation policy, 4th roster point is meant for promotion for Scheduled Caste category candidate and non-availability of any such candidate, the vacancy shall remain unfilled and will be treated as backlog vacancy. ,'.
Three posts of Senior Scale Stenographer fell vacant which were filled in by general category candidates i.e. Darshana Devi (promoted on 30.01.1980); Rani Karakoti (promoted on 27.11.1989) and Madhu Kumar (promoted on 27.11.1989). Pursuant to further promotion of Darshana Devi as Personal Assistant on 28.04.1984, one post of Sr.Scale Stenographer was kept vacant.
,+.
On the representation made by one Jasbir Singh, the respondentBoard promoted him to the post of Sr.Scale Stenographer, in officiating capacity vide order dated 27.04.1995. Thereafter, on 09.06.1996, Rani Karakoti was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant and again one post of Sr.Scale Stenographer fell vacant. Veena Setia also made representation and she too was promoted as Sr.Scale Stenographer in officiating capacity. ,5.
The petitioner gained eligibility for promotion upon completion of 5 years of service, on 01.03.1998. She made representations for being promoted to the post of Sr.Scale Stenographer, however, she was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on 28.03.2007. Vide order dated 29.08.2008, the petitioner was demoted to the post of Steno-typist on the ground that she did not appear in type test in English and Hindi, which the petitioner, on her promotion as Junior Scale Stenographer, was required to pass within 6 months. ,0.
The petitioner challenged the above order dated 29.08.2008 by way of filing suit for declaring the order dated 29.08.2008 as illegal, bad non-
- 3 - est, void ab initio wherein the plaintiff (petitioner) has been reverted from the post of Junior Scale Stenographer to the post of Steno-typist. ,>.
In the meantime, the respondent-Board constituted a Committee which considered the petitioner's claim for her promotion on 4th roster point to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer being SC candidate and resultantly, vide order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P12), she was promoted to the post of Sr.Scale Stenographer w.e.f. 01.03.1998.
,7.
One Hukam Chand - respondent No.4 made a representation dated 15.04.2010 claiming that the petitioner could not be promoted as Sr.Scale Stenographer as 5th roster point is not reserved for SC category. Consequently, vide order 22.12.2016 (Annexure P16), the petitioner was again reverted back to the post of Steno-typist. However, on the request of the petitioner, the Chairman of the Board vide letter dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure P17) referred the case to the Government for re-consideration of decision dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P16). The Government vide order dated 12.07.2017 declined the proposal on the ground that there was no new fact in the proposal under reference.
,6.
A show cause notice dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P19) was issued to the petitioner intimating her reversion to the post of Steno-typist, to which, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P20). The respondent-Board passed formal order dated 05.09.2018 reverting the petitioner to the post of Steno-typist citing reason that no post of Sr.Scale Stenographer was existing on 01.03.1998 when the petitioner became eligible for promotion. Hence this writ petition.
- 4 - ,-4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the impugned order, the respondent-Board has wrongly recorded against its own record that no post of Sr. Scale Stenographer was available on 01.03.1998, when the petitioner became eligible to the promotion on the said post. Admittedly, Darshana Devi, Rani Karakoti and Madhu Kumar were promoted w.e.f. 30.01.1980, 27.11.1989 and 27.04.1995, filling up 3 posts of Sr. Scale Stenographer. However, Darshana Devi was promoted as Personal Assistant on 08.12.1989 and as such, one post of Sr. Scale Stenographer fell vacant on 08.12.1989. The said post was not filled by the respondents at least till 01.03.1998, when the petitioner became eligible for her promotion to the post of Sr. Scale Stenographer. It is urged that though, Jasbir Singh and Veena Setia were promoted as Sr.
Scale Stenographers on 27.04.1995 and 26.09.1996 but they were never promoted against the vacant post of Sr. Scale Stenographer, which was vacated on promotion of Darshana Devi as Personal Assistant and as is evident from the promotion orders of Jasbir Singh and Veena Setia. Both of them were appointed on officiating capacity as Sr. Scale Stenographer against a post of direct recruit.
,--.
Dr. Surya Prakash, learned counsel submitted that Jasbir Singh was promoted as Sr. Scale Stenographer on 27.04.1995 only in officiating capacity and was never promoted against the available post prior to the petitioner and as such, he could not be promoted to the post of Personal Assistant, prior to the petitioner since he is junior to the petitioner on the post of Sr. Scale Stenographer. But the respondents have promoted Jasbir Singh as Personal Assistant on 28.03.2007. It is pleaded that notification issued by the State Government clarifies that in case a Scheduled Caste candidate is not
- 5 - available, such vacancy cannot not be de-reserved for any reasons and as such, since the 4th roster point was required to be filled by the petitioner being SC candidate, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be accepted. ,-%.
$
<
/ 46 -4 %4-7
$ -% # #/ 9
# < *
9
#
46 4% -6>6%% -675, 8 -.
&
/ < 9 !
< 4+ -66+ , 8-. / / # / <9
+ 9
9*
/ <
4+ -66+ / / / 4% -- -666 2 <
* * 5 4+ -66+
4% -- -666 $ ' , / ./
* %> 4+ -665%0 -660
# ,-'.
2 *< $ ' < 1
* *+
5 9 / ? @ / $ + *# *
## # <<
*, 8
;--./ 9<
5
*
/<9 <<<9
9 # * * +
5 , 8 ;'.
&
1 < ;
(
#
9< 1 <
< 9
# ##*
< * *#
- 6 - ,-+.
! " #
$ -% 9<
# ( -'
-660 * >5A9
<< * & %5A9
9
*8 ( - 3
%
3
,-5.
B # $ -% < %44+ #/
< % " # * /
< < * & * 3 8 4' / -44C
D*# 74 /
E '4 / D*# %5/
# /< &
# /#
" # * * # * %7 4'
%44>
;* *< < 9 /
/ # # <
/ 40< <
) * (
#
3 # /
;
%0 %447 & 1 # # 9
/ # < 9 ,-0.
1
9 ;
( / <<
/
4+ -66+ /
/
<9
9
9*
= # */
- 7 - 8 *F 44'
-667/
44'
-667 ##
/ ## /#
# 9# 2 *# * 1
<
<9
/ / # 9#
,->.
$ +<1# #/
< * < <9 $ -% 2
#
# $ +9<
##*
"9 *: $ '
9 %-
"9 * / *# G 46 -660 &
/
# * 9#
3# < *#
> %44+*#
,-7.
# 9 #
!!" #$%
9 <
9 9 H# * #
#
9 ##8
9*
<# <
<# /
99 ,-6.
&
* ##9# *
< #
'4 4- -6>%
8
# 9
# 1 ##*
#
- 8 -
*
#*## 9 #/
# <
,%4.
#
9 #9
#F/
< # 9 /
< <9 / # * * 9 /
# ,%-.
# # * * ,%%.
= < 9 9#
/ ;( / 44'
-66'
&/4'
# * ( # 5 H ;
3
# * /
%7 4% -667
< /
# # * &
/
/# " # *9
#
3#
/
;
%6 %447 ##* 9 1 # 1 # < # # / < )*< '- 4'
%4-4 , 8+F5.
,%'.
93 # 3 < 9
%'
4> %446 /
# * 4'
4% %4-4 / 44'
-667 /
# */
9
#
# %44+9
!
<
2#9<
-5 4% %4-7
/
-6 4- %4-7
/ <# . # * 11 9. *
- 9 - 9 ;(
# * # 1
# ,%+.
99 < /4'
# * ( ##
/ ##'
/ ## %0 -660 2
$ %%F'0F70;' !
;222 4+ -66+
/ # 9#/
4+ 8 &/ # * 44'
-667/
/# * 9#
9
<#
45 / / 3 #* ;
# * &2
4+ -66+// / / << 4% -- -666 & <9
# *9 < #9# / /#
4% -- -666 #
45 -4 %44+
# *
<
# */
D8 *4' # */
#/ #
& # */ #9# ##%> 4'
%44> ,%5.
;(
*
/ / < 9 # 9 1
$ *
4'
4% %4-4 ,%0.
# 44'
-667 / < /
/
# / 8 *F # * #9# ;( Three posts of
- 10 - Senior Scale Stenographer were sanctioned (2 by promotion and 1 by direct recruitment) in the Board since 1993. Further, in the present case perusal of facts and the instructions dated 04.05.1994 (Annexure R-1) and 02.11.1999 (Annexure R-2) makes it clear that scheme of reservation was not applicable till 02.11.1999 (i.e. the date of the withdrawal of the instructions dated 04.05.1994) due to the numbers of posts less than 04 for Senior Scale Stenographer in the Board and this was the reason that roster point phenomena was also not applicable until 02.11.1999 (Annexure R2). ,%>.
9
%% 4- %4-4
# # = # # # < < * %% 4- %4-4, 8 -'./ # / <<9H
/
8<
&<9
;/ *F
F<< < /
/ / ?+ @9 <9 #
/ ?5 @9
/
/
/ # < * 9 + 1 9 << 9 1
* 5
#
* 1
9<
,%7.
# /
#/ 1
< *
9
# !
< F1
F(
- 11 - #
1
< * # /
# *
< # #
< << * *
;
<# 9
# # * 93 <<
& / ; ## I1
H <<
#<9 # *
;( ,%6.
Thirdly, after the embargo which was present on the scheme of reservation policy dated 09.02.1979 (Annexure P1) due to instructions dated 04.05.1994 (Annexure R1) which stood withdrawn vide instructions dated 02.11.1999 (Annexure R-2), no post of Senior Scale Stenographer was vacant which became the sole ground for reversion of the petitioner vide order dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure P-21), while considering the representation of Respondent No.4. ,'4.
44'
-667 ##
# */ ## !
<
4+ -66+ #
9
#9*
/ <9 #
#
+ 1 < 9<
9#
,'-.
*# /
< -7 4> %4%'
/() *# + , -0
+ ,
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No