- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents specially Director General of Policerespondent No.2 to fill up the post of Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) by way of promotion and not by direct recruitment in view of the decision taken vide order dated 3/9.05.2011 (Annexure P3). Case initially came up for hearing before this Court on 17.05.2011, when this Court passed the following order: "Contends that there is only one permanent post of Scientific Assistant. The rules also envisage the method of recruitment of filling up such a post by direct recruitment as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she is working as a Laboratory Assistant for the last 8 years and is eligible for being promoted. Rule 9(12) of the Haryana Forensic Science (Group C Scientific Staff) Service Rules, 1979 governs the method of recruitment and it also contemplates the method of recruitment by way of promotion from amongst Laboratory Assistants. The Director General of Police, Haryana vide Annexure P-3 also recommended that since the post of Scientific Assistant is of a sensitive nature and requires vast experience, it would be proper to fill up this post by employing an experienced hand and that the direct recruit may not be able to satisfy the requirements. Learned counsel states that apart from the fact that she is eligible and there is only one post available, the resorting of filling up the post by direct recruitment is not only going to deny the right of consideration for promotion to the petitioner but it is also contrary to the recommendation of respondent No.2 himself. On due consideration of the matter, I deem it appropriate to issue notice of motion to the respondents for 12.08.2011. In the meantime, any appointment made pursuant to the selection process shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signature of the Special Secretary of the Bench."
(2.) The case was taken up for hearing on 14.12.2011 after the reply on behalf of the respondents was filed leading to the passing of the following order: "The grievance of the petitioner has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 17.05.2011. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is very candidly admitted that the post of Scientific Assistant has to be filled up from the promotees in the first instance. In fact, the entire case of the petitioner is admitted, if para-4 of the preliminary objection is to be seen and read with para-11 of the reply on merits. Surprisingly, the case of the petitioner has been discarded as the D.G.P. has opined that it is too late in the day to reverse the decision of filling up the posts by way of direct recruitment. The Court does not view this with appreciation, for the reason that if the claim of the petitioner is justified and based upon the rules, then the respondents are duty bound to adhere to the said rules and not say a go-bye to them and plead that it is too late in the day to have a recourse to a correctional course. Such an approach can only be termed to be regressive. At this stage, learned counsel for the State prays for some time to seek instructions. Adjourned to 16.02.2012."
(3.) Counsel for the respondent states that he has not been able to receive any instructions in the matter.;