HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent No.4 as Naib Tehsildar mainly on the ground that he (the petitioner) being senior to respondent No.4 should have been first promoted as Naib Tehsildar and only thereafter respondent No.4 could have been promoted.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner appears to be that he joined as Patwari in the department some time in the year 1958 and was promoted as Kanungo w.e.f. 1.9.1984. He claims to be senior to respondent No.4. Respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner had cleared the Naib Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? .yes. Tehsildar examination and do not dispute that he was also eligible for promotion. It is also not disputed that in the seniority list of Patwaris respondent No.4 was junior to the petitioner. However, the case of the respondent is that respondent No.4 appeared for the examination for appointment as direct Kanungo candidate and respondent No.4 was accepted as a direct Kanungo candidate w.e.f. 27.5.1978, whereas the petitioner did not even appear in the examination held in the year 1978. THEreafter Shri Ganga Ram joined as Kanungo on 12.3.1984, whereas the petitioner was accepted as Kanungo candidate only on 1.9.1984. THErefore the petitioner became a candidate after respondent No.4 had already been appointed as a Kanungo and undisputably the petitioner joined as Kanungo 11.5.1984, i.e. about six months after the respondent No.4. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, it is the seniority as Kanungos which is to be taken into consideration and not the seniority as Patwari.