Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Petitioner by way of present petition seeking quashing of impugned order dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure P-22).
(2.) Pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 1993 by the Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation, the petitioner was appointed as Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, vide appointment letter dated 27.08.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Works Manager on 23.06.1999. Similar controversy came into consideration before this Court in the year 1987 and the Draft Rules of the Corporation were prepared in the year 1988. The petitioner is claiming for promotion to the post of General Manager, which is being denied to him by making promotion by way of transfer from the Transport Department. The Commissioner of Transport Department of Haryana works as Managing Director of the Corporation. The Corporation is governed under the service rules applicable to the employees of the Transport Department, Haryana as per the decision taken on 04.12.1987 (Annexure P-1).
(3.) Under the above-said Rules, the Group 'A' employees of the Corporation governed under the Rules of Transport Department, Haryana. As per Rules 7, 9(I) (1) and appendix thereto, the eligibility for promotion to the post of Manager has been laid as under:- "No person shall be appointed to any post in the Service unless he is in possession of qualifications and experience specified in column 3 of Appendix to these rules in the case of direct recruitment and those specified in column 4 of the aforesaid Appendix in the case of appointment other than by direct recruitment: XX XX XX 9. (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be made:- XX XX XX (j) in the case of Deputy Transport Controller (Planning and Development), - (i) by promotion from amongst Statistical Officer, or (ii) by transfer or deputation of an officer already in the service of any State Government or the Government of India; (k) XX XX XX (I) In the case of General Manager and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, -- (i) by promotion from amongst Works Manager, Service Engineer, Stores Purchase Officer or Traffic Manager, or (ii) by transfer from Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Cadre, XX XX XX JUDGEMENT_247_LAWS(P&H)3_2016_1.html APPENDIX 'B' The petitioner is having the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering and is eligible for promotion to the post of General Manager since June 2004. Initially, one Joginder Singh, who was working as Works Manager at Sirsa was transferred as Officiating General Manager in the Corporation against vacant post which was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No.10164 of 2008. During the pendency of this writ petition, Joginder Singh was sent back to the Haryana Roadways as General Manager. Thereafter, one N.K. Garg, who was working as Works Manager in the Transport Department, was ordered to be given the officiating charge of the General Manager of the Corporation. The said writ petition wherein the challenge was to the appointment of Joginder Singh was withdrawn by the petitioner with the liberty to challenge the appointment of N.K. Garg, vide order dated 19.03.2009. Thereafter, before the petitioner could challenge the appointment of N.K. Garg, as officiating General Manager, a new order was passed on 07.08.2009 (Annexure P-9) whereby one Rajiv Nagpal, who was working as Purchase Officer in the Transport Department, was ordered to be promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Controller w.e.f. 11.12.2008 and by way of same order he was also given posting as General Manager in the respondent Corporation. Petitioner challenged the order (Annexure P-9) by way of CWP No.19921 of 2009. In the written statement, the respondents have denying the promotion on the ground by applying Draft Rules. The said writ petition was disposed of by making reference to the case of Union of India v. Puranjit Singh and another (2008(1) S.C.T. 818 : CWP No.18535 of 2007, decided on 14.12.2007) and giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of General Manager. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the Corporation, vide order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure P-11). This order was challenged by means of CWP No.3674 of 2012. In this writ petition, the respondent filed written statement (Annexure P-19) (colly.) and finally it was disposed of on 09.03.2015 (Annexure P-21) by giving the following observations:- "In view of this binding precedent even the third argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion after accepting his eligibility. Seeing the long struggle and multiple litigation which the petitioner has had to endure for this promotion, it is directed that necessary consideration be made as per law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of." The case of the petitioner was again rejected, vide order dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure P-22). The rejection was based upon rules which are yet to be notified though approved Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Employees Service Rules (Annexure P-23).;