M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) Petitioner M.L. Narula, Sub Divisional Engineer of Haryana P.W.D.(B&R) Department has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-State of Haryana to consider him for promotion, retro-spectively with effect from 10.12.1975, the date on which his junior Mr.1 R.K. Jain was promoted as Executive Engineer and the Petitioner was ignored for that promotion on account of his adverse record of service.
(2.) Petitioner is a released Emergency Commissioned Officer and was selected to the Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (B&R) Department, Haryana through the Haryana Public Service Commission in December, 1969. He claimed the benefit of Military service for the purpose of seniority in accordance with the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the State of Haryana on the basis that the recruitment of the petitioner had been made against the vacancy reserved for the Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officer/Ex-Servicemen. However, this was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court byway of writ petition, which was allowed and the petitioner was granted the necessary benefit of Military service towards his seniority in service. This was done on 1.10.1986 by which time number of his juniors over whom he was placed in the seniority list had been promoted to the next rank of Executive Engineers. Petitioner requested for the consideration of his case also with effect from 10.12.1975 when his first junior was promoted. Aggrieved by his non-promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer, the petitioner approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 2601 of 1987 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice S.S. Kang and M.M. Punchhi (as their Lordships then were) on 16.11.1987. The respondents were specifically directed by this Court to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Class-I Service, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment in B.M. Sharma's case CWP 623/87 dated 14.10.87 within a period of sue months. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion but he was ignored on account of his adverse reports i.e. the petitioner failed to earn 50% "good" reports, as out of 5 annual confidential reports in all only 2⅓ were "good", 2 were average"1 and ⅔ had not been written.
(3.) In reply to the writ petition, respondents have pleaded that according to the instructions of the State Government for the purpose of promotion to the higher rank an employee must earn at least 50% good reports. It is, however, admitted that material date for the purpose of considering the case of the Petitioner was 10.12.1975 and record of the service of the Petitioner relating to the subsequent period was not taken into consideration.;