Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishana Wanti And Anr vs C.C.S.H. A University And Ors on 11 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034307
RSA-1594-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:034307 1
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1594-2004 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
KRISHANA WANTI AND ANR ...Appellants
Vs.
C.C.S.H. A UNIVERSITY AND ORS ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate and
Mr. Deepinder Singh Walia, Advocate for the respondents.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree
of the lower Appellate Court vide which the judgment and decree of the trial
Court dated 19.05.2003 has been set aside and the suit filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.
2. It may be noticed that the appellants/plaintiffs were working on the
post of Steno-Typist with the respondent/University since the year 1990. There
are certain posts of Stenographers which were to be filled up, and in order to
adjudge the eligibility, a type test was conducted by the respondent-University
in March 1996 and the same was cleared by the appellants/plaintiffs.
3. From the candidates, who had cleared the type test conducted by
the respondent-University, in order of merit/seniority, the candidates were
promoted to the post of Stenographers in October 1998. Keeping in view the
number of posts filled up and the seniority of the appellants/plaintiffs, they
could not get promotion to the post of Stenographers. It may be noticed that as
per the record, all the posts which were existing upto October 1998, had already
been filled up.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034307
4. Thereafter, certain posts of Stenographers had become vacant and
in the year 2001, the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit seeking promotion to the post
of Stenographers. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment
and decree dated 19.05.2003, directing the University to make promotions of the
appellant-plaintiff to the post of Stenographers which are lying vacant on the
ground that as the appellants/plaintiffs had already attained the eligibility for
promotion to the post in question and the posts had become available, the
Department was under obligation to fill up the said post by promoting the
appellants/plaintiffs.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the University filed an appeal wherein, the University asserted before the
Lower Appellate Court that the Government had directed the University that the
Cadre Management exercise should be undertaken, and it is only after
ascertaining as to which post is necessary to be retained, so that only the post
which is required will be retained by the University, to be filled up.
6. Keeping in view the evidence, which had already come on record,
the Lower Appellate Court held that mere acquiring eligibility for promotion to
the post of Stenographers does not give a right to the appellants/plaintiffs to
seek promotion on the post in question, and once the Government had given the
direction to the University to first decide the cadre management, merely that the
post of Stenographers were available, is no ground to give a direction to make
promotion of the appellants/plaintiffs and that too retrospective. The judgment
and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 24.12.2003, by which the
judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs, is under challenge in the present regular second appeal.
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034307
appellants/plaintiffs submits that once the appellants/plaintiffs had gained the
eligibility for promotion to the post of Stenographer by clearing the test
conducted by the respondent-University as far back in the March 1996, the
respondents were under obligation to grant the promotion to the
appellants/plaintiffs as and when any vacancy arose keeping in view their
undertaking given before the competent Court of Law to the said vacancy.
8. It may be noticed that there is no right which vests with the
employee to seek promotion even if, the post is lying vacant. The only right
which exists with an employee is for consideration for promotion as and when
the employer decide to fill up the vacant posts in question.
9. In the present case, when the employer decided to fill up the vacant
post in October 1998, all the posts were filled up, but unfortunately the
appellants/plaintiffs could not get promotion keeping in view their seniority in
the cadre of steno-typist.
10. That being so, the decision of the trial Court that once the vacancy
had already become available in the cadre of Stenographers, the
respondent/University was under obligation to grant promotion to the post in
question to the appellants/plaintiffs, has rightly been set aside by the Lower
Appellate Court. No employer can be forced to promote an employee against his
wishes. The jurisdiction to fill up the promotion post vests with the employee
only and the Court does not have jurisdiction to give direction to promote an
employee even if a post is lying vacant unless and until any junior to the said
employee had been promoted in preference.
11. In the present case, no junior employee of the appellant has been
promoted but still, the trial Court issued the direction to the University to give
promotion to the appellants/plaintiffs merely on the ground that the post of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034307
Stenographers was lying vacant. The said decision is perverse to the settled
principle of law that no employee has a right to seek promotion even if the post
is lying vacant.
12. Further, it may be noticed that in the present regular second
appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court is to interfere where the judgment under
challenge is perverse either to the facts, evidence or the law. Learned Senior
counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs has not been able to point out the
perversity in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court by which, the suit filed
by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed.
13. In the absence of any perversity being pointed out the
appellants/plaintiffs in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, no case
for interference is made out. Hence, the present regular second appeal is
dismissed.
14. It may be noticed that the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs for
promotion as directed by the trial Court has been decided in the present Regular
Second appeal. In case after the cadre management, any rights accrues for the
appellants/plaintiffs thereafter any remedy availed for the said grievance, the
said relief will be governed by the decision in those proceedings.
Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
(JUDGE)
11.03.2024
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
