(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing orders dated 3.2.2006 (Annexure P-10 ) and 27.6.2000 (Annexure P-6) for not recommending his name for the post of Clerk against the 20% quota as per Haryana Civil Services (Promotion of Group C & Group D Employees) Rules, 1998 ( for short 1998 Rules)
(2.) Brief facts, relevant for the decision of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 9.12.1981 with the Education Department of Haryana. He was regularised on 5.12.1982. On 15.5.1992 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner was promoted and adjusted as Laboratory Assistant School Cadre in the grade of Rs. 950-1500/- plus usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana Government. At that stage the grade of the Peon was Rs. 750-940/-. The grade was revised w.e.f. 2.2.1996 in the year 1998 as Rs. 3050-4590/-. The cadre of Clerk in the Education Department of Haryana use to be governed by Haryana Education Department Sub Offices Ministerial (Group C) Services Rules, 1983 ( for short '1983 Rules'), which prescribed that 80% posts of Clerks were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 20% by way of promotion from Group C or D employees, whose scales of pay were less than Clerk and were matriculate. The '1983 Rules' were amended in 1998 which are now known as Haryana Civil Services (Promotion of Group C & Group D Employees) Rules, 1998. The eligibility for the post of Clerk as per Rule 3 is as follows:
(3.) On 23.5.2000 (Annexure P-6),the Director Secondary Education, Haryana Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 issued a letter regarding promotion of Class-IV employees to the posts of Clerks making a special mention that the names of the Laboratory Attendants were not to be recommended. The petitioner and the others filed CWP No. 20504 of 2002 in this Court, which was disposed of on 14.1.2003 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that the post held by the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant was Class III and the grade of Laboratory Attendant was equal to that of Clerk. The petitioner again filed CWP No. 3427 of 2005 challenging order dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P-8) before this Court. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.7.2005 (Annexure P-9) directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with 1983 Rules and the order reads as under: