Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) IN this bunch of writ petition (C.W.P. No. 440, 871, 1185, 1552 and 1820 of 1986) the Petitioners question the legality, validity and constitutionality of the Government instructions dated August, 10, 1981 providing for categorization of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the employees of the Education Department on the teaching side, on the basis of the results of all the subjects taught by them. Equally at issue, are the orders superseding Petitioners Smt. Sarla Sharma (C.W.P. No. 440 of 1986) and Narender Nath Gaur (C.W.P. No. 1820 of 1986) by their juniors for promotion to next higher posts, and notices dated December 10, 1985, December 19, 1985 and January 1, 1986 (copy Annexure P. 2 in all the cases) effecting premature retirement of Petitioners Banarsi Datt (CWP No. 871 of 1986), Kewal Singh Rathi (C.W.P. No. 1185 of 1986) and Nawal Singh (C.W.P. No. 1552 of 1986) respectively on the attainment of 55 years, age on the basis of categorization of their ACRs in accordance with the above instructions.
(2.) A broad -brush factual backdrop will help illumine the contours of forensic controversy cropping up in these writ petitions. Smt. Sarla Sharma, Petitioner, was working as a Lecturer in English in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Hissar. She had been posted at Hissar since 1974. In February, 1985, the Director of School Education, Haryana, enquired of the Petitioner as to whether she was willing to be promoted in Class II Service by joining in the State of Haryana wherever posted. The purpose of this communication was to ascertain from the prospective candidates, who were due for promotion, whether or not they were willing to be posted anywhere in the State of Haryana because most of the lady officials do not join their places of posting on promotion and some of them even forgo their promotions to avoid their dislocation from their present places of posting. Such options were asked for from other eligible lecturers also. The Petitioner replied that she was willing to avail of that promotion. In July 1985, some promotions were made to Class II Service from amongst the lecturers. However, the Petitioner was superseded and some junior lady lecturers were promoted to Class II Service. Smt. Kamla Sikri, who was admittedly junior to the Petitioner and was so shown in the seniority list of January 1980, was promoted by ignoring the claims of the Petitioner. The Petitioner represented against her suppression but with no result. The Petitioner then learnt that she had been superseded in pursuance of the instructions dated August 10, 1981 (copy Annexure P.4) on the basis of the results of the subjects taught by her. She has averred that her ACRs. for the last ten years were either good or very good and she had not been conveyed any adverse remarks. She has challenged that the prescription of the categorization of the ACRs on the basis of the results is arbitrary and discriminatory.
(3.) NARENDER Nath Gaur, Petitioner, was working as a Social Studies Master in Government High School, Raipur Rani, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. His case for promotion to the post of Lecturer, in History was sent to the Director, Public Instructions, Haryana. However, the Petitioner's claim was ignored and some persons who were junior to the Petitioner were promoted as Lecturer in History, on the ground that he did not have 10 per cent good reports to his credit for the period of past ten years and in the face of the Government instructions dated August 10, 1981 (copy Annexure P -3) he could not be promoted.;