RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a matter involving promotion. The petitioner was Statistical Assistant appointed in the Department of Employment, Haryana in November 1981 on the recommendation of the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board. He was an Ex-Serviceman who came to Civil Service firstly as Programme Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Haryana joining that post in August 1973. Military Service is not involved in this case. He later shifted to the Department of Employment Haryana on appointment as Statistical Assistant which is the situs of the promotion dispute. The claim is for promotion as Assistant Employment Officer (General) to which higher post there are two feeder promotion categories. There is direct recruitment also to the higher post with which we are not concerned.

(2.) The moot Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Haryana Employment Department (Group-B) Service Rules, 1991 (for short "Rules") provides for the method of recruitment by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Employment Officer (General) (for short "AEO") from the feeder categories of Head Assistants and Statistical Assistants/Technical Assistants (for short "SA/TA") working in the Department of Employment Haryana. The petitioner belongs to the category of SA/TA being a Statistical Assistant.

(3.) Twenty Five percent of the posts of AEO are filled by promotion from amongst Head Assistants and Statistical Assistants/Technical Assistants in the ratio of 60:40 (3:2). The sanctioned cadre strength of AEOs on the date of filing of the petition was 73 posts. Accordingly, 12 posts have been earmarked for the category of Head Assistant and 7 posts for Statistical Assistant by promotion and remaining 54 posts are meant for direct recruitment in terms of Rule 9. Thus far there is no dispute and it is common ground. The dispute is with respect to the fixing of ratio. Of the 19 posts falling to the promotion quota it is argued that the ratio has to be divided between Head Assistants on the one side and SA/TA on the other in the ratio of 3:2. If this ratio is applied then the share of Head Assistants would work out to in decimals 11.4 and of ST/TA; 7.6. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 8 posts are to fall to the share of SA/TA and only 11 posts should go to the category of Head Assistants for the purpose of promotion, while the department has divided quota 12:7. If this ratio is applied then the petitioner could not have been ignored for promotion as against respondent Nos.3 to 6. To remind, the petitioner belongs to the category of Statistical Assistants. Before the case is taken forward it would be necessary to read Rule 9 of the Rules which provides the method of recruitment to the services and prescribes as follows:-