- (1.) Ram Niwas, who is working as Junior Engineer in the Marketing Board, Faridabad, claims mandamus in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing respondent No. 1, the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, (hereinafter called "the Board") the consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer from the date Anil Garg-respondent No. 2 was so promoted. He also claims consequential benefits.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1981. He is possessing A.M.I.E. degree, obtained in July, 1990. In the seniority list of Junior Engineers, his name appears at serial No. 101 whereas name of Anil Garg respondent No. 2 appears at serial No. 118. Copy of the seniority list as on January 1,1989, depicting as above, is Annexure P/1. Respondent No. 2 passed A.M.I.E. in 1983 and on October 12, 1990, he was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer, although on that day the petitioner, who was senior to him and was duly eligible in all respects, was available for promotion and was ignored. Respondent No. 2 was reverted in December, 1991, but was repromoted on January 21, 1992. Again at that stage name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. He submitted representations, copies Annexures P/2 to P/5. The petitioner came to know that his representations were filed on the ground that respondent No. 2, Anil Garg, had passed A.M.I.E. before the petitioner passed A.M.I.E. and thus respondent No. 2 was promoted and the petitioner was ignored.
(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, the writ petition has been contested by the Board as well as by respondent No. 2. The Board took up the plea that alternative remedy of revision under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Marketing Act was available and the petitioner has not availed the same. Ad hoc appointment of Anil Garg was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 14976 of 1990 (Sham Sunder Arora vs. H.S.A.M. Board and another). The same was dismissed on November 21,1990, by the Division Bench. On merits in substance it was asserted that Anil Garg-respondent No. 2 was eligible for promotion as the post become available much prior to the passing of A.M.I.E. by the petitioner. Thus, name of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion. The petitioner passed A.M.I.E. in July, 1990. Reference was made to Civil Writ Petition No. 18888/1991, filed by Anil Garg challenging his reversion, which was allowed on January 20,1992 and thus in compliance thereto Anil Garg was again promoted. On the same lines stand was taken up by Anil Garg respondent in his written statement.;