M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.1.2005 (Annexure P.8) appointing respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Clerk. It has further been prayed that respondent nos. 1 to 3 be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Clerk from the year 1999 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 13.7.1987 in the office of respondent no.2 i.e. Special Secretary -cum- Director, Rural Development, Haryana, SCO 183-185, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh. His work and conduct has been assessed to be good/ very good. He passed matriculation examination from Haryana School Education Board in the year 1998 and became eligible to be considered for promotion under Rule 3,6 of the Haryana State District Rural Development Agency Employees Service Rules, 1991 (for brevity 'the Rules'). According to the rules 80 percent of the posts of Clerks are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 20 percent by promotion from Class "C" and "D" employees. In Schedule "B" it has been made clear that Class IV employee having passed matriculation with Hindi subject and 5 years experience as such is entitled for promotion against 20 percent quota. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all the qualifications and is eligible for promotion. It has further been asserted that there are total five posts of Clerks and three posts are occupied by direct recruits. One of the remaining two posts is required to be filled up by way of promotion on the basis of 20 percent quota and petitioner being senior-most Class IV employee fulfilling the qualifications for promotion has staked his claim to the post of Clerk. He submitted a representation to respondent no.4 i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, DRDA Kurukshetra. His name was recommended and the representation was forwarded to respondent no.2 who is the competent authority. All the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner have also been forwarded by respondent no.4 to respondent no.2. However, for the reasons best known to respondents the case of the petitioner has been kept pending. Eventually, the petitioner filed CWP No. 18245 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to respondent no.4 to take congnizance of the legal notice dated 10.8.2002 sent by the petitioner and finally decide the same by passing a well reasoned speaking order. On 19.1.2005, the legal notice sent by the petitioner has been decided by rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. The operative part of the order passed by respondent no.4 on 19.1.2005 is extracted below for facility of reference: "the legal notice dated 10.8.2002, given by Sh. Mohan Bahadur Saru, Peon have been re-examined with reference to the relevant records and DRDA Service Rules. He submitted the representation dated 18.6.1999 to the ADC cum CEO, DRDA, KKR for his promotion. The representation of the applicant was duly forwarded/ recommended to the competent authority i.e. Special Secretary cum Director, Rural Dev. Deptt. Haryana, Chandigarh vide CEO, DRDA, KKR letter no.1774 dated 4.8.1999 which was returned by the Joint Secretary and Director, Rural Dev. Dept. Haryana Chandigarh vide letter no. POE (EA-1)-99/3979 dated 16.9.1999 with certain observations. The reply of the observations was sent to the Head Office vide CEO, DRDA, KKR vide letter no.3813 dated 12.11.2000. In the meantime, the Training cum Production Centres functioning in the DRDA, KKR were closed w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and Sh. Avtar Singh and Sh. Lal Singh, Instructors working in the above Training Centres (being surplus) given their options for their adjustment against the two vacant posts of Clerks in the DRDA, Kurukshetra. As they have more qualifications and experience for class III posts, their case for adjustment against these posts was sent to the headquarter vide letter no.2147 dated 31.8.1989 and further vide DO Letter no.2542 dated 6.8.2001 and no.1706 dated 8.3.2004. Further more, the Joint Secretary and Director, Rural Devl. Deptt. Haryana, Chandigarh vide letter no. E A1-2002/2241 dated 6.5.2002 intimated that under Rule 3.6 of DRDA rules, creation of any new post shall be made by the Govt. and the Deputy Commissioner -cum Chairman of DRDA is not automatically competent for such promotion to class III employees of the DRDA. Accordingly, the above legal notice dated 10.8.2002 was duly dealt with and reply to Shri Mohan Bahadur Saru, Peon vide CEO, DRDA, KKR letter no.2221 dated 26.3.2004."
(3.) Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent nos. 5 and 6 have no claim to be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk nor they could be appointed by way of direct recruitment. In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rules 3.7 and 3.11 of the Rules alongwith the schedule and argued that the rule prohibits appointment of any person to the service unless he is in possession of qualification and experience specified in Column III of Schedule B appended to these rules in case of direct recruitment and those specified in column IV of the aforesaid schedule in case of appointment other than by way of direct recruitment. The quota of 20 percent of promotion from the eligible Class "C" and"D" employees has been prescribed and qualification of matric alongwith knowledge of Hindi upto matric has also been mentioned. The candidate is also required to have five years experience of service in DRDA.;