- (1.) CM No. 15543 of 2012 Prayer in this application is for placing on record Annexure-P-9. Prayer granted. Annexure-P-9 is taken on record. Application stands disposed of.
(2.) CWP No. 21507 of 2012 Petitioners hold substantive posts of Superintending Engineers in the Public Works Department (Irrigation), Haryana. They were appointed directly to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Class-I) in April, 1998. They were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and fulfil the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Chief Engineer. In the cadre of Superintending Engineer, petitioners are senior to respondents No. 3 to 6 and being senior to them, they were entitled to consideration and promotion to the post of Chief Engineer prior to the private respondents. Official respondents have proceeded to promote respondents No. 3 to 6 to the post of Chief Engineer, vide order dated 26.10.2012, ignoring the petitioners, despite they being senior in the gradation list to the private respondents No. 3 to 6. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the promotion order of respondents No. 3 to 6 dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure-P-7) and have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Chief Engineer.
(3.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the services of the petitioners are governed as per the provisions of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class-I Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Act, 1995 (in short '1995 Act'), as amended from time to time. As per the said Act, term 'members of the service' is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, according to which, an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post includes an officer appointed by way of direct recruitment, transfer or promotion. The 1995 Act stands repealed by the Haryana Service of Engineers, Group-A, Irrigation Department Act, 2010 (in short '2010 Act'). As per the said Act, Section 2(m) defines 'members of the service' to mean an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post and includes an officer appointed by promotion or by transfer. It is contended on this basis that since the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment as Assistant Executive Engineer (ClassI), they are not governed by the provisions of this Act of 2010 and, therefore, the service conditions of the petitioners are governed mutatis mutandis in accordance with the provisions of the 1995 Act. The petitioners being senior to the private respondents No. 3 to 6 and fulfil the requirements of the statute for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, they are entitled to consideration and promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. Private respondents No. 3 to 6, who have been promoted, vide impugned order, to the post of Chief Engineer, do not fulfil the mandatory criteria of three years experience as Superintending Engineer which is required for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and, therefore, their promotion is not sustainable. Accordingly, prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned order of promotion of private respondents No. 3 to 6, dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure-P-7) and directing the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Chief Engineer.;