D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing promotion order dated 20.3.1984 Annexure P.7 and the order dated 25.9.1985 Annexure P.8 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, rejecting his representation against his supersession in the matter of promotion, and issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider him for promotion from the date respondent No. 3, his junior, was promoted as General Manager, Haryana Roadways.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners holds a Degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical). He was directly recruited and appointed was Works Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind, in the year 1974 on ad hoc basis. His appointment v/as later on regularised by the Haryana Public Service Commissioner after about a year. His services were, however, terminated in Jan., 1977 but he was reinstated in July, 1977 and continued working in the post of Works Manager. The appointment and the conditions of his service are governed by the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class II) Rules, 1963. The next higher step by promotion from the post of Works Manager is to the post of General Manager as provided in rule 6(1 )(a) read with rule 3 which inter-alia provides that recruitment to the service in the case of General Managers shall amongst others would be by promotion from amongst the Works Managers and that all promotions whether from one grade to another or from one class of service to another shall be made by selection based on merit taking into consideration seniority and seniority alone shall not give any right of appointment. The tentative seniority list of Works Managers/Service Engineer in the Haryana Roadways was issued vide Annexure P.2. The petitioner is placed at Sr. No. 5 while respondent No. 3 is at S. No. 6. Vide D.O. letter dated 15.2.1984 Annexure P.4 he was conveyed adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the year 1975-76. He made a representation against these adverse remarks on 22.2. 1984 vide Annexure P.5. However, by taking those adverse remarks into consideration, which mention his integrity as doubtful, the petitioner was ignored and was not considered for promotion to the post of General Manager and instead respondent No. 3 was so promoted vide order dated 20.3.1984 Annexure P.7. He made a subsequent representation dated 15.9.1984 but to no effect. His grievance thus was that he had been wrongfully ingorned in the matter of promotion when his representation against adverse remarks was still pending. The petitioner was later on allowed to amend his writ petition wherein he incorporated the fact that the adverse remarks regarding his integrity in the confidential report for the year 1975-76 had been expunged vide order dated 25.9.1985 Annexure P.8, but complained that he was again not being considered for promotion on the ground that he had not earned 7096 good reports in the last 10 years as per the criteria laid down by the State Government vide letter dated 9.5.1985. He contended that he was entitled to consideration for promotion on 20.3.1984 when his junior was so promoted and at that time the criteria for consideration for promotion was 50% good reports in the last 10 years which he had certainly earned. He further submitted that vide Annexure P.8 it had been wrongly held that in spite of expunction of adverse remarks aforementioned he was still not entitled to promotion as General Manager and sought quashing of this part of the aforesaid order.
(3.) The petition was opposed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement. It was maintained that earlier it had not come to the notice of the authorities that the adverse remarks about the integrity of the petitioner were contained in his confidential report for the year 1975-76 and when these adverse remarks came to notice the same were conveyed to the petitioner. As he had poor record of service he was not considered fit for promotion, and the officer next junior to him, i.e. respondent No. 3, was promoted as General Manager. It was admitted that the adverse remarks in the confidential report for the year 1973-76 have been expunged later but it was maintained that the petitioner was not still considered fit for promotion as General Manager for the reason that he had earned average reports for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. It was, however, conceded that the instructions issued by the State Government on 9.5.1985 to the effect that only those officers who had 70% good reports in the last 10 years were entitled to consideration for promotion are applicable only to those who are considered for promotion after the date of the issuance of the said instructions and that the petitioner was to be considered for promotion with effect from 20.3.1983 when the officer next junior to him was promoted.;