K.Kannan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks for quashing of the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, on 10.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Clerk. THE rejection has been, as the impugned order reads, for the post of Group 'C' and Group 'D', who were matriculates, where 20% posts were to be filled up by promotion in the cadre strength which was determined at the district level. THEre existed 52 sanctioned posts of Clerks in different Municipal Committees in district and if 20% of the posts were to be set apart towards promotion quota, it would mean 10 posts for Clerks and since 10 posts had already been filled up, the petitioner could not be considered and as and when any vacancy arose, he would be issued with appropriate orders. THE impugned order would, therefore, make it appear that the petitioner was otherwise fully qualified for being considered to the promotion to the post of a Clerk, but since no vacancy existed presently, the petitioner could not be favoured with an order of appointment.
(2.) THE petitioner would contest the claim of the respondents by pointing out to the fact that he had joined as Sweeper in the Municipal Committee, Assandh on 19.03.1999, having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Assandh and he obtained matriculation qualification subsequently and had also completed 5 years of experience on 18.03.2004, the requisites for being considered to the post of Clerk. THE petitioner had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Karnal, seeking a consideration for promotion which was originally decreed on 26.10.2006, but in the appeal filed before the District Court, Karnal, by the respondents, it was modified on 04.12.2007 to provide for a direction to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider his case and pass appropriate orders. THE petitioner would contend that there were two posts still lying vacant in the department at the time when the consideration was made by the Deputy Commissioner and in any event after 17.12.2007, number of employees had already been retired and vacancies do exist, but the post has not been given to him. So long as the petitioner's right for consideration to the promotion itself has not been challenged, the relevant issue for consideration would be whether the petitioner has been able to prove the existence of vacancy to which he could be accommodated. I have to go only with the information as submitted by the respondent himself when it is pointed out that the previous order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 12.01.2006 granting promotion to persons, who were working as Sweepers were all persons, who had been seniors to the petitioner. The petitioner himself does not dispute the information contained in the reply that Jai Chand, who was the 5th candidate to be promoted was senior to him and he had been promoted on 12.01.2006. The petitioner himself had entered the service on 19.03.1999. The information obtained from the Deputy Commissioner through RTI is that as on 07.09.2010 in the Municipal Committee, Assandh, 4 posts of Clerks were approved and two posts were filled up and two posts were still lying vacant. The facts brought through Annexure P-7 are sought to be explained by the written statement filed by the 4th respondent pointing out to the fact that the vacancies for promotion quota do not allow for accommodating the petitioner, unless the petitioner is able to match that two posts, which were said to be lying vacant, are both for promotion quota. There is no scope for finding the action of the respondents in denying promotion was wrong. When a contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner, the respondents have given a compliance report of the orders passed by the Court giving out the following information of the clerical staff of the Municipal Committees of the district of Karnal. Out of 19 sanctioned posts of Clerks in the Municipal Committee of District Karnal, 4 posts were required to be filled up through promotion quota and all the 4 posts have already been filled up vide the seniority-cum-merit list prepared on 13.01.2006. The names of such persons, who have been promoted, are also set out. The petitioner would still have a grievance that there is a vacant post as on 30.04.2012 that is required to be filled up. The petitioner filed before me a copy of the letter from the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Assandh, that there is still a vacant post. I cannot vouch by the correctness of the letter from the Secretary simply reproduced across the bar without affording an opportunity to the State to counter the same.
(3.) I will go with the statement of the State contending that as and when vacancies arise in the post of Clerk within the sanctioned strength for the promotion quota, the petitioner will be considered and promoted in the order of seniority. Without pointing out to the fact that there exists actually a vacancy in the promotion quota, the petitioner cannot obtain promotion by the only fact that there is a vacancy in the post of Clerk. He should prove two things: (i) that there is a vacancy in the post of Clerk and (ii) that vacancy is towards the promotion quota. Such facts are not brought out in the petition and the documents filed in court. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be assailed and the writ petition ought to fail and is, consequently, dismissed.;