Ashwani Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2199 P&H

115
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                             AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CR-9591-2021
                                                      Date of Decision:02.08.2021

Ashwani Kumar                                                       ....Petitioner
                                             VS

State of Haryana and others                                         ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:        Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhoria, Advocate and
                Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate
                for the petitioner

                Mr. S.K Verma, Advocate
                for respondents No.3 to 5

                                                  *****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is allegedly a shareholder of the Meham Cooperative

Sugar Mills Limited. He has filed this writ petition challenging order dated

26.02.2021 promoting respondent No.6 as the Chief Engineer of the said sugar

mill.

On the previous date of hearing, it had been observed that in view of

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'S.S. Rana vs. Registrar, Co-operative

Societies and another' 2006(4) SCJ 543, a writ petition against a co-operative

society is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed the Court on this

issue at all.

It has been submitted that the order of promotion has been passed in

violation of order dated 12.02.2021 passed in CWP No.2243 of 2021 (Annexure P-

6) whereby, this Court had directed stay of further promotions in any sugar mill in

the State of Haryana. Moreover, vide order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the sugar mill, a finding has been returned that

1 of 2

respondent No.6 was not qualified to hold the office of Chief Engineer. Thus, the

order of promotion dated 26.02.2021 deserves to be set aside.

A perusal of order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) shows that the

controversy in the said case was regarding promotion of persons who did not

belong to the feeder cadre and who were junior in service. In that context, the order

of stay of further promotion was passed. Thus, considered, the said would not

apply to the case of the petitioner in any manner. Further, order dated 18.08.2020

passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman cannot be said to be an

authority for determining the eligibility of respondent No.6. No rule/regulation

which may have been violated, has been brought to the notice of this Court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed both on merits and

on the ground of maintainability.

                                                            ( SUDHIR MITTAL )
                                                                 JUDGE
02.08.2021
Poonam Negi

              Whether speaking/reasoned              Yes/No
              Whether Reportable :                   Yes/No




                                       2 of 2