Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Rajiv Awasthi And Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
NISHA
LPA-1449-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
112 LPA-1449-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.07.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
.. Appellants
VERSUS
RAJTV AWASTHI AND OTHERS
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Amit Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Baldev Singh Maan, Advocate
for respondent No.1-caveator.
ie 2 2Ie 34
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(QRAL)
1. The present intra court appeal has been preferred by the State
of Punjab to challenge judgment dated 10.01.2023 through which a learned
Single Judge of this Court has allowed respondent No.1's writ petition. Also
under challenge is the order dated 20.03.2024 through which an application
filed by the State seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dated
10.01.2023 was dismissed.
2. A few essential facts may be noticed.
3. Respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 7 were serving as
Junior Scale Stenographers (for short-Junior Stenos) in the Punjab Civil
Secretariat. The next promotion from the post of Junior Stenos is to the post
2024.07.15 14:53
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA
LPA-1449-2024 (O&M) -2-
of Senior Scale Stenographers (for short-Senior Stenos). As per the
applicable instructions Junior Stenos who have put in one year of service
and have passed the Punjabi Stenography test are eligible for being
considered for promotion as Senior Stenos. The said instructions further
provide that after being promoted as Senior Stenos, within the permissible
chances, the incumbent is required to pass the English Stenography test and
if he fails to do so, he is liable to be reverted.
4. All the respondents were serving as Junior Stenos and
respondent No.1, as Junior Steno, was senior to respondents No.2 to 7.
Respondents No.2, 4 to 7 passed the Punjabi Stenography test on
20.09.2010 whereas respondent No.3 passed the same on 29.09.2011.
Respondent No.1 also passed the Punjabi Stenography test on 12.10.2012.
However, before respondent No.1 could pass the Punjabi Stenography test,
through an order dated 31.05.2012, respondents No.2 to 7 were promoted as
Senior Stenos. These promotions were against the vacant posts of Personal
Assistants. This was so because as on 31.05.2012 there was no regular post
of Senior Steno available. Later, through order dated 06.05.2013, 07 senior
most Senior Stenos were promoted as Personal Assistants. On these 07
posts vacated by the afore referred Senior Stenos, through order dated
10.05.2013, respondents No.2 to 7 were adjusted as Senior Stenos.
5. As noticed earlier, respondent No.1 passed the Punjabi
Stenography test on 12.10.2012 and was promoted as Senior Steno on
07.10.2014 but since by that time respondents No.2 to 7 had already been
promoted as Senior Stenos, respondent No.1 was placed junior to
respondents No.2 to 7 as a Senior Steno. Respondent No.1 filed a
2024.07.15 14:53
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA
LPA-1449-2024 (O&M) -3-
representation seeking seniority over and above respondents No.2 to 7 as a
Senior Steno on the rejection of which he petitioned this Court.
6. Through order dated 10.01.2023, a learned Single Judge of this
Court allowed respondent No.1's writ petition. An application filed by the
State seeking review of the Judgment dated 10.01.2023 was also dismissed
by the learned Single Judge on 20.03.2024. Both the aforesaid judgment
dated 10.01.2023 and the order dated 20.03.2024 are the subject matter of
the challenge through the present intra court appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
8. It is not disputed that as a Junior Steno respondent No.1 was
senior to respondents No.2 to 7 and that the next promotion from Junior
Steno is to the post of Senior Steno. It is further the admitted position that
the eligibility for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Steno a
Junior Steno is required to have experience of one year and should have
passed the Punjabi Stenography test as also that after having been promoted
to post of Senior Steno, within the permissible chances, should pass the
English Stenography test or face reversion.
9. After having served as Junior Stenos for over 01 year,
respondents No.2, 4 to 7 passed the Punjabi Stenography test on 20.09.2010
whereas respondent No.3 passed the same on 29.09.2011. The contesting
respondent No.1 also passed the same test on 12.10.2012.
10. On 31.05.2012, respondents No.2 to 7 though being junior to
respondent No.l as Junior Stenos, were promoted in preference to
respondent No.1 as Senior Stenos. The State seeks to justify such action on
the ground that as on 31.05.2012 they had passed the Punjabi Stenography
test whereas respondent No.1 had not.
2024.07.15 14:53
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA
LPA-1449-2024 (O&M) -4.
11. At first glance, the justification offered by the State appears
attractive but it does not withstand deeper scrutiny.
12. A perusal of the order dated 31.05.2012, through which
respondents No.2 to 7 were promoted as Senior Stenos, reveals that their
promotion was against 06 vacant posts of Personal Assistants which is the
next promotional post from the post of Senior Steno. This was so because
as on 31.05.2012 no regular post of Senior Steno was available.
13. Further, a perusal of the order dated 06.05.2013 reveals that
through such order 07 senior most Senior Stenos working in the Punjab
Civil Secretariat were promoted as Personal Assistants. As a result of
promotion of these 07 officers, 07 regular posts of Senior Stenos became
available. Respondents No.2 to 7, through order dated 10.05.2013 were
adjusted against these 07 posts as Senior Stenos. Thus, it is clear that on
31.05.2012, when respondents No.2 to 7 had been promoted as Senior
Stenos, there was no regular vacancy of Senior Steno and that such
vacancies became available only on 06.07.2013. This fact is also not
disputed by the learned State counsel.
14. In the above factual background, we have no hesitation to
conclude that on 31.05.2012, the promotions of respondents No.2 to 7 as
Senior Stenos were against non-existent posts. Therefore, such promotions
would and could not confer seniority on them as Senior Stenos. Regular
posts of Senior Stenos became available only on 06.05.2013. Therefore, the
State was required to consider filling up posts of Senior Stenos, on regular
basis, only after 06.07.2013. Had that been done, as it should have been, at
that time the contesting respondent No.1 as also respondents No.2 to 7 were
eligible for promotion from Junior Stenos to Senior Stenos and if
2024.07.15 14:53
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
LPA-1449-2024 (O&M) 5-
promotions had been made at that time respondent No.1, who was Senior to
respondents No.2 to 7 as Junior Stenos would and should have retained his
seniority on the promotional post of Senior Steno.
15. In the light of the above discussion, we find no error, factual or
legal, in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
16. Dismissed.
17. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
July 03, 2024
Nisha Yadav
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
NISHA
2024.07.15 14:53
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
