SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7696 and 15941 of 2000 as the questions of law and facts involved in both these writ petitions are identical.

(2.) THE facts as conjoined from Civil Writ Petition No. 15941 of 2000 titled Sadhu Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others are that Sadhu Singh petitioner was recruited as Clerk on 9,8.1971. He was promoted as Assistant on 2.5.1977 and Depmy Superintendent on 21.3.1990. B.L. Grover, petitioner No. 2, was recruited as Clerk on 12.8.1971. He was promoted as Assistant on 28.7.1977 and as Deputy Superintendent on 23 -11.1990. In the Haryana State, upto the level of Deputy Superintendent, which is a Class - III post, there is a policy of reservation and not beyond that. Both the petitioners had since been promoted as Superintendent on 3.4.1991 and 8.7.1991 respectively. It is asserted that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vir Pal Singh Chauhan : 1995(6) SCC 684 : 1995(4)SCT 695 (SC), followed by subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh -II v. State of Punjab : 1999(7) SCC 209 : 1999(4) SCT I (SC) and Sube Singh Bahmani v. State of Haryana : 1999(8) SCC 213 : 1999(4) SCT 328 (SC), the respondent State had drawn the seniority list. According to the petitioners, they are senior to all the respondents except respondents No. 2 to 10 who have become senior by virtue of catch up rule. The seniority list otherwise so prepared is stated to be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that the seniority list dated 17.5.2000 that has been finalised by the State of Haryana giving seniority to 11 the respondents i.e. respondents No. 2 to 78, is contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court because respondents No. 11 to 78 had not reached the level of Deputy Superintendent when the petitioners were promoted as Superintendent and thereafter as Under Secretary in the State of Haryana. It has been mentioned that the State of Haryana has promoted A.C. Kapil, respondent No. 13 and B.R. Chawla, respondent No. 14 besides Dhani Ram, respondent No. 23, who were otherwise junior to the petitioners. They had not been -promoted as Deputy Superintendent when petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Superintendent on 3.4.1991. Similarly, it is pointed out that Som Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 26 and S.N. Chugh, respondent No. 27, were junior to the petitioners and had not been promoted as Deputy Superintendent by the time petitioner No. 2 had taken over as Superintendent. By way of illustration, the petitioners have stated that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, by the principle of catch up rule, only the persons mentioned as respondents No. 1 to 10 i.e. R.D. Gupta to Soma Devi, would catch up. So far as the seniority of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it has been demonstrated as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_149_LAWS(P&H)1_2001.html</FRM>

(8.) HEREIN , a show cause notice, indeed, had been served and the same had been contested. It is not shown as. to what prejudice, if any, had been caused. In the absence of it being shown as to how the petitioners could not defend themselves properly, we find no reason to hold that the show cause notice had caused prejudice and, therefore, should be quashed. Otherwise also, during the course of arguments, all that was to be urged had been argued before us. The arguments were heard at length. The controversy was the same which was to be raised at that time. Therefore, we deem it unnecessary to relegate them back in any event to the authorities. Looking at from eilher angle, the said argument so much thought of by the learned Counsel is of no avail.