Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 14 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
CWP-1756-2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CWP-1756-2000
Date of Decision : November 14, 2024
Ashwani Kumar and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioners is that vide order dated 03.02.2000, copy of which has been
appended with this petition as Annexure P-3, the petitioners have wrongly
been reverted from the post of Senior Assistant to that of Clerk, which is
arbitrary and illegal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners
were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide order dated 30.07.1996
though subject to certain conditions but keeping in view the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.11660 of 1995 titled as
Saroj Rani and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on
24.08.1999, the petitioners who had qualified the Assistant Grade
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
Examination, were entitled to be adjusted against the vacancy meant for
qualified Clerks, which had already existed upto 21.01.1999 whereas, the
petitioners have not been granted the said benefit and the petitioners have
been reverted only to adjust the exemptees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that without
ascertaining the availablity of the vacancy, the exemptees, only on the basis
of the seniority, have been granted the benefit of adjustment as Assistant so
as to revert the petitioners by stating that no vacancy was available for their
promotion under 30% quota.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply
wherein, they have mentioned that the petitioners were promoted in the year
1996 with certain conditions that the said promotion is subject to the order
to be passed keeping in view the litigation where, the withdrawal of the
Assistant Grade Examination on 21.01.1991 was under litigation.
5. As per the reply, the vacancies have been filled up keeping in
view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Saroj Rani's
case (supra) and after granting the benefit to the exemptees as well as to the
Clerks who qualified the Assistant Grade Examination in the ratio of 70/30
respectively, there was no vacancy available for adjustment of the
petitioners and that is why, they were reverted to the post of Clerk.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner hinges
upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Saroj
Rani's case (supra). The same is reproduced hereunder for the ready
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
reference:-
" (1) All vacancies on the post of Assistants/ Senior
Assistants prior to 21st January 1991, are to be filled up by
those who qualified by passing the examination and exemptees
who qualified by passing the examination and exemptees would
have no claim on such vacancies.
(2) All vacancies after 21st January 1991 shall be filled in the
ratio of 70 percent and 30 percent between exemptees and
qualifiers in the examination, respectively, for each year in
question till all the existing qualifiers are absorbed.
(3) All promotions or reversions made has to be readjusted
within the aforesaid framework, irrespective of any interim
orders then in force.
(4) Any incumbent who worked on the post of Assistant/ Senior
Assistant on account of promotion orders and in case they have
to be reverted or have been reverted, any salary or
consequential amount paid to such employees for working on
the post of Assistant/ Senior Assistant shall not be taken back
from them. Similarly, if any employees gets promotion to the
post of Assistant/ Senior Assistant from an early date, he/she
will not be entitled for any arrears of salary.
(5) State shall complete this exercise of promotion on the above
said formula on or before the 31st December 1999, till then the
existing arrangement shall continue.
(6) So far two appellants in the appeal of Ravi Lamba, since
they were promoted prior to 21st January 1991 for which there
is no dispute and their reversion order being held illegal, they
may be promoted forthwith and they may not be asked to wait
for the final exercise of promotion in all other cases."
8. A bare perusal of the above order would show that any post
which of the Assistant/Senior Assistant, which came into being prior to
21.01.1991, is to be filled only from the Clerk, who had qualified the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
Assistant Grade Examination. After the withdrawal of the Assistant Grade
Examination on 21.01.1991, the posts of Assistant/Senior Assistant are to
be filled in the ration of 70:30 between the exemptees and the qualifier
respectively. Meaning thereby that after 21.01.1991, a post occurs, is to be
filled 70% from the exemptees and 30% from the Clerks who qualified the
Assistant Grade Examination till all the qualifiers are adjusted.
9. In order to implement the said directions, the respondents
undertook the exercise of revising the date of the promotion of the
exemptees as well as the Clerks who were promoted on the basis of passing
of the Assistant Grade Examination.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the
Clerks, who were promoted on the basis of the seniority without passing the
Assistant Grade Examination, their dates of promotion have been revised
subsequent to 21.01.1991. After adjusting the seniors by giving them 70%
of the posts, the petitioners, who were beyond the quota of 30%, could not
be adjusted. In the impugned order, it has been clearly mentioned that due
to the non-availability of the vacancies of the Senior Assistant qua the
qualified Clerks, who had cleared the Assistant Grade Examination, the
petitioners were reverted with the condition that as and when any vacancy
in their quota will come into being, the petitioners will be considered for
promotion. Once the respondents have only implemented the judgment in
Saroj Rani's case (supra), no grievance can be raised by the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further raised an
argument that the exemptees have been adjusted against the vacancies
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
which had come into being prior to 21.01.1991.
12. On being asked to point out the data as to how the said
argument has been raised, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been
able to substantiate the said arguments on the basis of the facts/documents
on record. Nothing has been shown to this Court that any exemptee has
been given a date of promotion prior to 21.03.1991.
13. That being so, the said argument that the exemptees have been
adjusted against the vacancies which had come prior to 21.01.1991 by
ignoring/violating the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Saroj Rani's case (supra), is not made out.
14. The last argument which has been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that certain non-qualified Clerks were promoted and
keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Saroj Rani's case (supra), their dates of promotion were changed and the
resulted vacancies were to be given to the petitioners, have not been given.
15. On being asked to point out as to what was the cadre strength
and how the said argument has been raised to show that any vacancy of
Assistant was available after the adjustment of the exemptees Clerks,
learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any fact.
16. Rather, the respondents in their reply, has given the dates of
filling up the post which had come into being after the year 1991 in
paragraph 11 of the reply, which fact has gone un-rebutted.
17. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149088
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
November 14, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
