Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kaur vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 December, 2022
CWP-24641-2014
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO. 24641 OF 2014
DATE OF DECISION: 06.12.2022
Raj Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate,
For the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash impugned order dated 24.05.2013 (Annexure
P-9), vide which private respondents were promoted from the post of
Nursing Sister to the post of Matron in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34,800/-
+ GP Rs.5450/- without recasting the seniority in view of law laid down
by Supreme Court in the case of "Ajit Singh Janjua and others v. State
of Punjab and others" reported in 1994 (4) RSJ 211 SC. Further prayer
was made to quash the order dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P-13) whereby
claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The narrow controversy involved in the case is summed up
by my learned brother Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (as he then was earlier
seized of the matter) vide order dated 17.12.2014 which is reproduced
herein below:
1 of 4
CWP-24641-2014
"Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
a judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed by this Court in CWP
No. 25512 of 2012 (Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and
others), to contend, inter alia, that once the reservation
policy of 2006 had been set aside by this Court in CWP
No.17280 of 2011 (Prem Kumar Verma and others v. State of
Haryana and others) decided on 07.08.2012 and the later
reservation policy dated 28.02.2013 was also set aside by
this Court in Rajbir Singh's case (supra), the respondent
authorities were duly bound to re-cast the seniority before
passing any promotion order. However, in the present case,
this exercise has not been carried out by the respondent
authorities.
Notice of motion for 09.03.2015."
3. Subsequently the matter was heard by another co-ordinate
Bench headed by Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (as he then was in this Court) and
following order dated 11.02.2019 was passed:
"State to file an additional affidavit explaining inter se
seniority between Sunita Rani, a direct recruit in reserved
category of Scheduled Caste who joined service on
09.07.1986 and the petitioner, an ad hoc appointee joining
on 27.06.1985 and subsequently regularized in service as
Staff Nurse on the same day i.e. 09.07.1986 when Sunita
Rani was appointed. Thus, in this eventuality what does the
Rule of seniority say.
The additional affidavit would also explain as to how
in the first seniority list the name of the petitioner was shown
higher than Sunita Rani. The affidavit be filed within three
weeks.
List on 08.03.2019."
4. Apropos, affidavit dated 26.07.2019 has been filed wherein
following unequivocal and candid stand has been taken:-
4. That admittedly, petitioner is senior to the private
respondents, who belong to reserved category candidates, in
the cadre of Staff Nurse. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit
Singh Janjua v. State of Punjab, 1999 (4) RSJ 211 SC, lays
down the principle of catching up if the reserved category
candidate who is junior in the feeder cadre is promoted to a
higher post because of the benefit granted to such person of
reservation but on promotion of a general category
candidates to said cadre, the person, who was senior in the
feeder cadres shall be treated as senior in the promotional
2 of 4
CWP-24641-2014
cadre. As such, in view of principle laid down in case Ajit
Singh Janjua case, accelerated promotion was allowed, but
not accelerated seniority. Therefore, petitioner is also senior
to Sunita Rani SC candidate (respondent No.4) in the cadre
of Nursing Sister."
5. Having perused the same, I find that the same is within four
corners of law as laid down by Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's
case (supra). Official respondents are fully conscious of how to proceed
with, once a reserved category candidate has been promoted above the
general category candidate, in order to provide accelerated promotion for
giving benefit of belonging to Scheduled Caste category. It transpires that
though the deposition has been made in accordance with law but the
necessary administrative exercise of the recasting the seniority list for
promotion has not been carried out till date.
6. In the return filed, it appears that the exercise of re-casting
the seniority list was not carried out owing to the petitioner lacking seven
years of experience, as has been more specifically stated in para 5 of the
affidavit which, for ready reference, is reproduced herein below:
"5. That petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Speaking
order dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P13) wherein she was
declined of promotion for post of Matron. It is pertinent to
mention that the Haryana Health Department Nursing
Personnel and Lady House Keepers (Group C) Services
Rules, 1998 are the rules governing the service conditions
for posts of Staff Nurse, Sister Tutor, Matron (involved in
present writ petition) along with other promotional posts.
Appendix B of said Rules provides for eligibility conditions
in case of promotion to post of Matron, including 7 years of
experience as Nursing Sister while the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Nursing Sister w.e.f.01.06.2012 vide
orders dated 14.05.2012.Therefore, she was not entitled for
promotion being in-eligible for non-fulfilling the requisite
condition of seven years' experience to the post."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with
an expectation that since the respondents are fully conscious of what
exercise has to be carried out, as has been deposed herein above in the
3 of 4
CWP-24641-2014
affidavit, needful will be done as expeditiously as possible but not later
than six months from today.
DECEMBER 06, 2022 (ARUN MONGA)
Shalini/vandana JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
