- (1.) On being selected, through competitive test, the Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Establishment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on 20th March, 1989. In the year 1991, temporary posts of Steno-Typist were advertised. Selection was through a prescribed test. The Petitioner was selected and appointed as Steno-Typist with effect from 16th July, 1991 and continues to work since then in that capacity. Vide Memo No. 312/Spl./E.D.V.B., dated 3rd December, 1994 (Annexure P-l), option was invited from the Petitioner whether he would like to revert to the original cadre of Clerks and would forego placement in the senior scale. Reply was solicited within three days. Vide his reply dated 12th December, 1994 (Annexure P-2), the Petitioner opted to forego his placement in the senior scale of Clerks. Exercise of this option was, however, made conditional. The Petitioner requested that his lien in the Cadre of Clerks be retained. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was never communicated that his request for retention of lien was ever declined.
(2.) Vide order dated 23rd September, 1997 (Annexure P-3), Respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith three others were promoted from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Senior Assistant against available vacancies. It is at this stage that the Petitioner made a representation dated 17th November, 1997 (Annexure P-4) seeking his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground that Respondents No. 2 and 3 were junior to him in the cadre of Clerks and they have been promoted in the higher pay scale. The Petitioner also pleaded that since he had retained his lien in the cadre of Clerks and thus, he was entitled to promotion as Senior Assistant on the basis of his seniority in the cadre of Clerks. The Petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 28th October, 1998 (Annexure P-5) that his request for considering his name for the post of Senior Assistant has been considered and Hon'ble the Chief Justice has declined the same. The Petitioner accordingly filed the present petition seeking the quashment of the orders dated 23rd September, 1997 (Annexure P-3) promoting Respondents No. 2 and 3 to the post of Senior Assistant as also the communication dated 28th October, 1998 (Annexure P-5) rejecting his representation.
(3.) The Petitioner has raised following contentions in the writ petition and reiterated the same during the course of arguments: 1. That the Petitioner had opted to forego his placement in the senior scale of Clerks with the condition to retain his lien in the cadre of Clerks. His plea of retention of lien in the cadre of Clerks was never rejected and thus he continues to be borne on the cadre of Clerks. Me being senior to Respondents No. 2 and 3 was entitled to be considered for promotion as Senior Assistant on the basis of seniority as against his juniors; 2. That the post of Steno-Typist was only temporary and continues to be temporary even till date. The Petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of promotion and that too without any valid reason resulting in discriminatory and hostile treatment to him; and; 3. That his representation has been rejected by a non-speaking order, without disclosing any reason, much less a valid one.;