- (1.) The material facts leading to this writ petition may be briefly stated as under :-
(2.) The petitioner joined the service as Clerk with the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on November 18, 1955. He was promoted as Assistant on November 13, 1961, and was confirmed thereafter. He was then promoted as Assistant Superintendent on October 9, 1969, and was later confirmed in the said post with effect from the said date and had been working as such since then. There was one post of Superintendent in the office of the Board. In the beginning of the year 1974, it was felt that an ex-cadre post of Section Officer (Administration) in the scale of Rs. 500-30-650/30-800-50-850 and in the rank of Superintendent of A class Government office be created, who could share the work, the volume of which had increased enormously with the Superintendent. Reference to that effect was made to the Government in February, 1974, and the Government conveyed their approval for the creation of that post for a period of one year. So, the Board created the said post on September 30, 1974. Shri Lal chand (Respondent 3) was holding the post of permanent Assistant substantively in the office of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was A class office. He had been taken on deputation from that office by the Board in October, 1972 for one year which term was extended for another year i.e. upto October, 1974. He was appointed to the aforesaid newly created post of Section Officer (Administration) on November 26, 1974. Aggrieved by the said appointment of Lal Chand as Section Officer (Administration), the petitioner made the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, claiming writ of quo warranto or direction or order in the like nature and a writ of mandamus quashing the aforesaid appointment of Lal Chand as Section Officer (Administration) and also commanding the State of Haryana (Respondent 1) and the Chairman of the Board (Respondent 2) to consider his (the petitioner's) claim for promotion to the aforesaid post of Section Officer (Administration) on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. He averred that the Board, being a local Authority, was statutory body and it had framed the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules), governing and regulating the conditions of service, including recruitment, of its employees under clause (xxviii) of sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 . According to the said rules, an employee who can be appointed as Superintendent Administration in the Board on deputation, must have 10 years' service as Assistant in A Class Government office with at least 3 years service in a supervisory capacity, and he can be appointed to the said post if no suitable candidate is available from the employees of the Board. The petitioner alleged that the newly created post of Section Officer (Administration) was in fact or was at least equal to the post of Superintendent and the candidate to be appointed must possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Superintendent Administration. He averred that Lal Chand had never worked in a supervisory capacity and, therefore, lacked one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the aforesaid post and that his (the petitioner's) case was not considered while appointing Lal Chand to the post of Section Officer (Administration), and that he (the petitioner) had the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Superintendent and his record of service was excellent. Therefore, the appointment of Lal Chand to the post of Section Officer (Administration) having been made against the Rules, was illegal and deserved to be quashed and was detrimental to his (petitioner's) right of promotion to the said post of Section Officer (Administration). Such is the case of the petitioner and he claimed the writs of quo warranot and mandamus on the grounds mentioned above.
(3.) Shri Munshi Ram has filed, in opposition, his affidavit by way of return. The broad facts were not disputed. It was, however, pleaded that the petition was not maintainable because of statement of certain false facts therein; that the post of Section Officer (Administration) and that Lal Chand possessed the necessary qualifications and he had been validly appointed to the said post. The claim of the petitioner that his record of service had been outstanding or that his case while appointing Lal Chand to the post of Section Officer (Administration) was not considered was refuted. The facts that an ex-cadre post of section grade or Section Officer (Administration) was not considered was refuted. The facts that an ex-cadre post of Section grade or Section Officer (Administration) in the scale of Rs. 500-30-650/30-800-50-850 and in the rank of Superintendent A Class Government Office was created on September 30, 1974, and Lal Chand was appointed to the said post for one year with effect from November 26, 1974, that at the relevant time he (Lal Chand) was holding the substantive post of Assistant in the office of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and was working on deputation as Assistant with the Board, are not disputed. The further facts that the office of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, was A-Class Office and Lal Chand had been working as Assistant in the said office for more than ten years and the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent in the office of the Board and there were two other Assistant Superintendents, viz., Sarvshri B.D. Gupta and Kali Ram Singla, working in the Board and Shri B.D. Gupta was senior to the petitioner, are also not disputed. It was represented by Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the deputation of Lal Chand to the service of the Board was extended for the second time upto October, 1975, and the said representation was not controverted on behalf of the petitioner.;