Kartar Singh Saharan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 20254 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kartar Singh Saharan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 22 November, 2023

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398




CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and
CWP-6575-1996                         2023:PHHC:148398            1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(101+207)                       CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and
                                CWP-6575-1996
                                Date of Decision : November 22, 2023


Kartar Singh Saharan and others                            .. Petitioners



                                Versus

State of Haryana and others                                .. Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
             Mr. Vijay Vardhan, Advocate and
             Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners.

             Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

             Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the applicant
             in CM-19367-CWP-2023.


HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-19367-CWP-2023

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present

application may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further

with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate remedy in case he feels

aggrieved against any action.

Ordered accordingly.

CWP-6575-1996

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge to the promotion of

the private respondents from the post of Statistical Assistant to that of

Assistant Registrar with a further prayer to direct the respondents to

1 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

consider the claim of petitioners, who were working as Inspectors for

promotion to the post of Assistant Registrars.

2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation

of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioners were working on the post of Inspector,

Cooperative Societies on which post they were appointed on different dates,

which are depicted in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The private

respondents were working on the post of Statistical Assistant. The next

promotion is to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which

post was to be filled up as per Punjab State Cooperative Service (Class II)

Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "1958 Rules"). The method of

recruitment was given in Rule 5 of the 1958 Rules according to which, the

said post was to be filled up by promotion from State Service Class III

meaning thereby that whosoever is working on a class III post, is eligible

for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

4. Though, the posts of Statistical Assistant were very much in

existence in the Haryana Cooperation Department but the Statistical

Assistants were not being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant

Registrar. The Department framed new Rules in the year 1980 which were

known as Haryana Cooperation Department Group 'C; (Executive) Rules,

1980, which were notified on 14.03.1980. In the said Rules, the post of

Statistical Assistant was also included in Group C service i.e. class III post.

Despite the said amendment to the 1980 Rules, the Statistical Assistants

working in the Department were not being considered for promotion to the

post of Assistant Registrar, which action was challenged in CWP No.4196

of 1983 titled as Rameshwar Dass and another vs. State of Haryana and

2 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

others, decided on 13.07.1992 (Annexure P-1). Learned Single Judge, vide

order dated 13.07.1992, held that once under 1980 Rules, the status and the

rank of Statistical Assistant is higher than that of Inspector, the Statistical

Assistant is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in

preference to the Inspector. Keeping in view the said direction given, the

Statistical Assistant's claim was considered and they were promoted to the

post of Assistant Registrar, which order is under challenge in the present

writ petition.

5. It may be noticed that the said judgment of the Coordinate

Bench of this Court was challenged by the Haryana State Cooperative

Inspector and Sub Inspector Association by filing CWP No.13348 of 1992

which came up before the Division Bench. The petitioners were also part of

the said Association which had challenged the said judgment dated

13.07.1992. The Division Bench vide order dated 15.12.1993, the

dismissed the said writ petition holding that the Statistical Assistants are

entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar having higher status

and analysis given by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated

13.07.1992 was upheld qua the status given to the Statistical Assistant,

which Post also formed part of class III Rules. It was thereafter, in the year

1995 that for the first time for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar,

ratio between the Statistical Assistant and the Inspector was fixed by the

Government of Haryana. The 1980 Rules were amended in the year 1995 to

grant the quota in the cadre of Assistant Registrar for the feeder cadre of

Statistical Assistant and the Inspector according to which, the post of

Assistant Registrar was to be divided between Statistical Assistant and

Inspector in the ratio of 1:8.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

3 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

argues that though the judgment dated 13.07.1992 was given by the

Coordinate Bench in the year 1992 but the said judgment has not taken into

consideration the fact that from the year 1986 till 1991, the pay scale of

both the post was same though, once again in the year 1991, the pay scale of

the post of Statistical Assistant was increased than that of Inspector, hence,

from 1986 to 1991, it cannot be said that the post of Statistical Assistant

was having a higher pay scale than that of Inspector.

7. The second argument raised by the learned senior counsel for

the petitioners is that in the year 1981, the ratio of 8:1 was fixed between

Inspector and Statistical Assistant, hence, the same should have been

adhered to while making the promotion and in case, the same is adhered to,

promotion of the private respondents is bad in law.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present

petition is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground that once the

Coordinate Bench while passing order in CWP No.4196 of 1983, decided

on 13.07.1992, approved the higher status of post of Statistical Assistant as

compared to the post of Inspector so as to give them preference over the

Inspector for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as well as the

judgment of the Division Bench in CWP No.13348 of 1992, which was

filed by the Association, of which the petitioners were the members,

wherein the promotion of Statistical Assistant to the post of Assistant

Registrar in preference to the Inspector was upheld and the interpretation

given by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13.07.1992 was

upheld, hence, the subsequent filing of the present petition challenging the

promotion of the private respondents which promotion of private

respondents were ordered on the basis of the order passed by this Court, is

not at all maintainable.

4 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that

though there was a letter issued in the year 1981 fixing the quota but the

said letter was a proposal only to be given effect after the amendment of

rules in question whereas, the said amendment was only carried out in the

year 1995 hence, the letter dated 24.04.1981 being relied by the learned

senior counsel to claim the quota between the Cadre of Inspector/Statistical

Assistant, cannot be accepted.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

11. From the facts, which have been narrated hereinbefore, it is

clear that since 1980, the Statistical Assistants were part of the Class III

cadre so as to be entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

The said benefit was not being given to the Statistical Assistant which

action of the respondent-State came up for judicial scrutiny in CWP

No.4196 of 1983. Learned Single Judge held that as per the 1980 Rules,

for the purpose of promotion, the Statistical Assistants are higher in status

and rank than the Inspector hence, Statistical Assistants have a better claim

for promotion as compared to the Inspector. The relevant paragraph of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge is as under:-

" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A bare perusal of Appendix 'B' to 1980 Rules shows that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant, apart from having certain academic qualifications, an experience of three years as Inspector, Cooperative Societies, is necessary. This would go to show that the post of Statistical Assistant in 1980 Rules is higher in status and rank that that of Inspector, in as much as it is as Inspector, Cooperative Societies, who has three years

5 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

experience as such and has certain academic qualifications who is eligible for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant. It is also not disputed that the pay scale of the post of Statistical Assistant is higher than that of an Inspector Cooperative Societies and even the academic qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Statistical Assistant are higher than for direct recruitment to the post of an Inspector, Cooperative Societies. Rule 5 of the 1958 Class III Rules, provides that the post in the service shall be filled by promotion from class III. Now if an Inspector is eligible for promotion to class II service, why should not a Statistical Assistant, who is higher in rank and status, be not eligible for consideration for promotion? No justifiable reason has been given by State Government as to why Statistical Assistant are not eligible for promotion to the post in Class II Service. If more the none categories are eligible for promotion to the next higher rank, it is always open to the State Government to provide certain quota for each category, but in absence of any such quota, according to me, the higher rank has to be exhausted first before going to the lower rank, which may also be eligible for promotion to a particular post. It has not been suggested on behalf of the State Government that any quota has been fixed for all the eligible categories for being promoted to class II Service. This being the factual matrix, since the Inspectors, Cooperative Societies, are eligible for promotion to class II service, there is no reason to deny the same right of consideration for promotion to Statistical Assistants. The denial of such right would be, to my mind, violative of class II Rules as also the equality clause enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India."

12. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the

Statistical Assistants have been treated at a higher rank/pedestal as

compared to the Inspector for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

13. The argument which has been raised by the learned senior

6 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

counsel for the petitioners is that though Statistical Assistants were having a

higher pay scale upto the year 1986 but from the year 1986 to 1991, the pay

scale for the post of Inspector and Statistical Assistants remained the same

though in the year 1991, the Statistical Assistants were again given the

higher pay scale, hence, from the year 1986 to 1991, it cannot be said that

the Statistical Assistants were higher in status as compared to the Inspector.

The said argument cannot be accepted in view of the findings which have

been recorded by the Coordinate Bench wherein, on the basis of the Rules,

the higher status was given to the post of Statistical Assistants on the basis

of the qualification and experience and not on the basis of the pay scale.

Once, the pay scale was not taken into account by the Coordinate Bench to

hold the post of Statistical Assistant at a higher footing than the post of

Inspector to claim promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, the

argument that the pay of the Statistical Assistant and Inspector remained

same for a period of five years, will not grant them equal status so as to

claim promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar by claiming equality.

14. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that prior to 1986, it is a

conceded position that the Statistical Assistant were having a higher pay

scale though for a limited period, the pay scale of Statistical Assistant and

the Inspector remained the same but the said anomaly was challenged by

the Statistical Assistant, which was accepted by the Government in the year

1991 so as to again grant the benefit of higher pay scale to the Statistical

Assistant as compared to the Inspectors, which shows that the Statistical

Assistants were treated at a higher pedestal as compared to Inspectors even

by the Government for the grant of the pay scale and that is why, the higher

pay scale was again restored to the Statistical Assistant in the year 1991.

7 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

Hence, the argument which has been raised by the learned senior counsel to

claim that the post of the Inspector is equivalent to the post of Statistical

Assistant, cannot be accepted.

15. The second argument, which has been raised by the learned

senior counsel is that as per the letter dated 24.04.1981, there has to be a

ratio of promotion for the post of Assistant Registrar qua the feeder cadre of

Inspector as well as Statistical Assistant. The letter dated 24.04.1981 is

reproduced hereunder for the ready reference.

" Sub: Recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana from the Statistical Assistants fixation of ratio between Inspector Cooperative and Statistical Assistants.

2. Reference: Your Office memo no. Admn. 11/BAG 115 dated 12.2.1981.

The Government has decided to fix the ratio of 8:1 between Inspector Cooperative and Statistical Assistants respectively for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, Coop. Societies, Haryana.

3. In every slab of 9 vacancies to be filled by promotion the vacancy at no. 5 will got the Statistical Assistant for promotion as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, if a Statistical Asstt. gets promoted as Statistical Officer before the arising of 5th vacancy, this vacancy (i.e. 5th) would thus to the Inspectors. If a Statistical Assistant gets promoted as Statistical Officer after the 5th vacancy has arising he would be promoted as such not no vacancy would be Statistical Assistant in the next slab of

9. Revised draft service rules for class II may be sent accordingly."

16. A bare perusal of above would show that the said proposal was

to come into effect only after the service rules are amended. It was

mentioned in the letter itself that the draft service rules for the Class II post

8 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

CM-19367-CWP-2023 in/and

be sent accordingly. This shows that till the service rules are amended so to

provide the quota in the service rules, the said letter could not have been

given effect to. Rather in earlier proceeding, State never pleaded any quota

for effecting promotions between the Cadre of Statistical Assistants and

Inspectors.

17. Even otherwise, the said letter was very much available with

the Inspectors at the time when CWP No.4196 of 1983 as well as CWP

No.13348 of 1992 were decided. No such claim was raised by the

petitioners at that time and even Govt. never pleaded quota.

18. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have already lost

through their Association in the similar claim raised in CWP No.13348 of

1992, challenging the promotions of the private respondents in the cadre of

Assistant Registrar does not arise especially when the said promotion was

result of the direction given by the competent Court of law for granting

promotion to the Statistical Assistant from the date they gained the

eligibility under 1980 Rules.

19. No other argument was raised.

20. As of now, it may be noticed that not only the petitioners but

even the private respondents have retired from service since long. Upsetting

the promotions, which were ordered on the basis of direction given by the

competent Court of law, at this stage, even otherwise is not feasible.

21. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

November 22, 2023                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                         JUDGE

              Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
              Whether reportable       : Yes/No
                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148398

                                       9 of 9