Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwaljeet Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 15 April, 2024
CWP-13569-1996 (O&M) 1
2024:PHHC:051325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.204 CWP-13569-1996 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
Kanwal Jeet Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA
Present: Mr. B.S.Patwalia, Advocate and
Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
3 2k 3
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing the order dated 08.07.1996, Annexure P-14, whereby
petitioner's representation for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer has
been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the
official respondents to re-designate/promote the petitioner as Lecturer with
effect from the date third respondent was so designated, as also to consider
and promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer.
2. The facts relevant to decide the matter are, the petitioner joined
the respondent-Technical Education Department as adhoc Drawing
Instructor on 18.09.1967, and was appointed on regular basis on 15.06.1968.
One post of Foreman Instructor (Automobile Engineering) was available,
and the petitioner being the senior most was so promoted, vide order dated
02.01.1980, Annexure P-1. His promotion was approved by the Haryana
Public Service Commission, vide letter dated 25.04.1989, Annexure P-3.
The third respondent was appointed as Instructor in Automobile Engineering
MANINDER
2024.04.22 10:22 = ON 15.05.1971, and promoted as Lecturer on 16.04.1981. Since the third
attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CWP-13569-1996 (O&M) 2
2024:PHHC:051325
respondent was the petitioner's junior, the latter made a representation
seeking promotion as Lecturer, Annexure P-2. Afterwards, the third
respondent was duly promoted as Senior Lecturer in Automobile
Engineering on 04.07.1996, Annexure P-11. With these facts, the petition
has been filed to re-designate/promote the petitioner as Lecturer with effect
from the date the third respondent was so designated, as also to consider him
for further promotion as Senior Lecturer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the third
respondent is petitioner's junior, and has worked under the latter's
supervision also. The posts of Foreman and Lecturer are equivalent and as
per Madan Committee's recommendations, all Demonstrators/Drawing
Instructors who possessed qualifications for the post of Lecturer, were
promoted as such. Accordingly, the petitioner is also entitled to
re-designation as Lecturer, and further promotion to the post of Senior
Lecturer.
4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the
petitioner was not eligible to be promoted as Lecturer in Automobile
Engineering for want of essential qualifications. At the relevant time, he was
working as Foreman Instructor which had the identical scale as that of a
Lecturer, and was entitled to further promotion to the post of Superintendent
Workshop. The nature of duties of a Foreman Instructor are different from
those of a Lecturer in Polytechnics; the former conducts practicals for
students in the workshop, whereas the latter teaches theory to the students.
Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted as Lecturer, and
was rightly not considered.
5. Heard
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner was senior to the third
MANINDER . . .
2024.04.22 10:22, respondent and, on that basis, the former was given promotion as Foreman
I attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CWP-13569-1996 (O&M) 3
2024:PHHC:051325
Instructor. There is nothing on record to establish that Foreman Instructors
were required to be re-designated as Lecturers Automobile Engineering in
the Department, nor has any such instance been referred to. Besides, one of
the essential qualifications required for promotion to the post of Lecturer
was, 1" Class Diploma in Automobile Engineering. Since the petitioner
possessed 2"" Class Diploma in Automobile Engineering, he was not eligible
to be promoted as Lecturer. Similarly, one of the essential qualifications for
promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer was eight years' experience in
Automobile Engineering, which was also not possessed by him. These facts
could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there
is no merit in the petitioner's claim for re-designation as Lecturer as well as
promotion as Senior Lecturer.
7. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
as having been rendered infructuous.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
15.04.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
