- (1.) AUGUSTINE George Masih, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category, was appointed as a Clerk on 14.01.1983 in the Department of Health. Respondents No. 3 to 5 belong to the General Category and were appointed as Steno -typists on 26.05.1983, 01.02.1992 and 24.05.1993 respectively. Petitioner was promoted as an Assistant on 19.08.1988 against roster point reserved for the Scheduled Caste Category Employees. Respondents No. 3 to 5 were promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on 17.11.1999. Till this post, the cadre of the petitioner and the private respondents is separate. There being no commonality between them, the respective seniorities in their own cadre would determine their claim for further promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. For promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the Haryana Health Directorate Ministerial (Group C) Service Rules, 1983, the feeder cadre consists of Assistant Incharge/Assistants/Accountants/Senior Storekeepers/Cashiers/Senior Scale Stenographers/Assistant -cum -Stenographers. Petitioner being eligible for promotion was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent on 13.09.2011 whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 were promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 26.11.2012 and respondent No. 5 on 02.12.2013. Petitioner was thus, senior to the private respondents as they were promoted from different cadres and petitioner was promoted prior to the private respondents. Even on the initial post i.e. Clerk, the petitioner was appointed prior to the private respondents, who were subsequently appointed when taken into consideration the length of service and of his own strength was also on this basis senior to them. Further promotion to the post of Superintendent is from the post of Deputy Superintendent but the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent treating him to be junior to respondents No. 3 to 5 on the basis that the judgment in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1999 (4) RSJ 211 would be applicable and the principle of catching up would apply. This, the counsel for the petitioner asserts, is a mis -conception on the part of the respondents. Petitioner had already submitted two representations dated 10.07.2013 and 29.07.2013 (Annexures P -2 and P -3 respectively) claiming seniority over and above the private respondents, which representations have yet not been responded to.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that vide order dated 29.01.2014, respondents No. 3 to 5 have been promoted to the post of Superintendent whereas the claim of the petitioner has not been considered only on the ground that he is being treated as a junior to these respondents, which is not in accordance with law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case (supra) as the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the Financial Commissioner -cum -Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Health Department -respondent No. 1 and Director General, Health Services, Haryana -respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks, which may be directed to be considered and decided by these respondents within some specified time.
(3.) IN view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the Financial Commissioner -cum -Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Health Department -respondent No. 1 and Director General, Health Services, Haryana -respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks' and the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondents within a period of six weeks' of submission of such representation. Decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.;