Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Chander vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 December, 2023
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159539
214
2023:PHHC:159539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4659-2019
DECIDED ON: 13.12.2023
ISHWAR CHANDER
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. AG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the impugned letter dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) vide which the respondents
asked the petitioner to give his consent for his absorption on the post of Peon
(Group D post), while permitting the other surplus employees working on the post
of Superintendent, Investigator, Junior Scale Stenographer, Technical
Assistant/Statistical Assistant, Junior Computer Programmer to continue working
on the same post till their superannuation/death.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
working on the post of Instructor since the year 1997 and has the experience of
performing the duties of Assistant but was declined surplus alongwith other persons,
who were deputed on various posts namely Superintendent, Investigator, Junior
Scale Stenographer, Technical Assistant/Statistical Assistant, Junior
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159539
Computer Programmer, Accountant Drivers, Peon, Chowkidar-cum-sweepers, but
thereafter except the petitioner, who was actually performing the duties as Assistant
since the year 1997 against a vacant post and at times against the vacant post of
Assistant Project Officer (APO) also, all other employees in the categories have
been ordered to continue vide letter dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-6) till the date of
their superannuation/death as such.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been offered a
post of Peon (Group D) assigning the reason that he is only a middle class,
therefore, does not fulfill the qualifications for any of the aforesaid posts except that
of Peon and accordingly commensurate to his educational qualification, post of
peon has been offered very fairly and justifiably.
4. In counter to the aforesaid argument raised by Mr. Sandeep Singh
Mann, Addl. AG, Haryana, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in "Sukh Bilas Thakur vs. Bihar State
Electricity Board and Others, 2019(1) SCT pages 535 alongwith Simla Devi vs.
State of Punjab and Others, 2006 (2) RSJ 656", wherein it was held that an
employee cannot be denied regularization on account of lack of qualification, who
has gained experience by his length of service and has to be considered equivalent
to the requisite educational qualification meant for that post.
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the effect as could be made out
from a perusal of the written statement as well that the petitioner was working on
the post of Assistant, since 1997 despite being middle class except a bald assertion
to the vague denial to say that the petitioner never performed the duties of Assistant
and that of APO, whereas the report shows otherwise.
6. In the light of aforesaid facts, the respondents are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner keeping in view the length of service rendered by him for
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159539
29 years on a group 'C' post and experience to perform the duties at par with the
persons, who are matriculated and have been offered the posts of Superintendent,
Investigator, Junior Scale Stenographer, Technical Assistant/Statistical Assistant,
Junior Computer Programmer, Accountant, Driver, Peon, Chowkidar-cum-
Sweepers.
7. This Court is also sanguine of the case law in B.N. Saxena vs. New
Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors., 1990 (2) RSJ as well as Bhagwati Prasad
vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) RSJ 255 (SC),
wherein it was held that practical experience would always aid the person to
effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability and,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be thrown out after serving the department for a
period of 29 years on the pretext that he does not acquire the necessary educational
qualification particularly in the light of admitted fact at the time when he was taken
into service; there was no criteria prescribed for minimum educational qualification
for the said post and with the prevailing educational qualification criteria, his
services rendered for 29 years cannot lose sight of the said fact.
8. Hence, the petition stands allowed and the respondents shall take a
decision by passing a speaking order, considering the claim of the petitioner, in the
light of aforesaid case law as well as his length of service and observations made
herein within a period of one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. Ordered accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
13.12.2023 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159539
3 of 3
