- (1.) Petitioner, who is working as a Sub Divisional Officer (Animal Husbandry and Dairying, for short AH&D), has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) to the extent that private respondents No.3 to 9, who were junior to him, have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director (AH &D) in violation of the instructions of the Government of Haryana denying him his right of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AH&D). Prayer has also been made for issuance of directions to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Director (AH&D) with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted i.e. 18.8.2010. Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, who is senior to private respondents No.3 to 9, has been denied his right for consideration for promotion and thereafter promotion relying upon the instructions dated 13.2.1962 which have been amended vide notification dated 18.11.1971. As per the instructions dated 18.11.1971, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director could not have been denied. He has referred to the proposal dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P- 4) prepared by the Department, for promotion to the post of Deputy Directors which was forwarded by the Director, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Haryana-respondent No.2 to the Government of Haryanarespondent No.1 to contend that this proposal has been prepared with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner of his right to consideration for promotion and thereafter promotion by relying upon instructions dated 13.2.1962 which stood superseded by instructions dated 18.11.1971, according to which the claim of the petitioner could not be denied to him for promotion to the post of Deputy Director as on the date of consideration and preparation of the proposal for the post of Deputy Director, no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner nor had an Enquiry Officer been appointed which would debar his claim for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. He contends that the proposal for promotion was prepared on 22.4.2010 and the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4.6.2010. Reply to which was filed by the petitioner on 12.7.2010 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 19.7.2011 i.e. almost after one year from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet whereas the promotion case of the private respondents was sent to the Competent Authority for approval on 19.5.2010. On that date, there was no charge-sheet pending against the petitioner as the same was issued to him only on 4.6.2010 and, therefore, the action of the respondents denying promotion to the petitioner for the post of Deputy Director cannot sustain.
(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that case for promotion of Sub Divisional Officers to the post of Deputy Directors was initiated on 19.5.2010 but prior thereto, the Competent Authority decided on 12.5.2010 to charge-sheet the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and charge-sheet was issued to him on 4.6.2012. Orders of promotion to the post of Deputy Directors were issued on 18.8.2010 i.e. after a period of more than 2 months when the petitioner was charge-sheeted. He contends that one post of Deputy Director has been kept vacant for the petitioner for being considered for promotion. The Competent Authority has rightly denied promotion to the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. The proposal which was prepared by respondent No.2 considering all the competent persons as per the Statutory Rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AH&D) (Annexure P-4) would show that there were 11 vacant posts of Deputy Director (AH&D) which were to be filled up by promotion and the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.5. The proposal while dealing with the petitioner reads as follows:- "Dr.Brahamjit Singh Rangi This officer joined service on 6.4.1993 as Vety. Surgeon and is working as SDO AH/equivalent since 7.10.2003 regularly. Thus the officer possesses 15 years of experience of HVS-VII service with 3 years experience in supervisory capacity. His confidential record for the last 10 years i.e. from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009 is 100% good or above category and his integrity has not been assessed as doubtful during these years. A case of disciplinary proceedings under rule 7 against this officer is under consideration. He cannot be promoted to the post of Deputy Director (AH&D) at this stage as per provisions in the instructions issued vide No.1497-4GS- 62/4059, dated 13.2.1962 (copy placed below). Hence, his right for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AH) may be kept reserved. Panel No.4 1.Dr.Surender Singh Gahlawat 2.Dr.Ranbir Singh 3.Dr.Kalyan Singh"
(3.) A perusal of the above would show that relying upon the instructions dated 13.2.1962 (Annexure P-7), it has been recorded that the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Deputy Director as a case of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the Rules is under consideration against the petitioner.;