Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 470 (HP)

Girdhari Lal Sharma v. H. P. Vidhan Sabha & Anr.

2021-07-28

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: i) That the seniority list issued on 30.08.2014 be quashed and set aside to the extent it places the respondent No.2 over and above the petitioner with further directions to issue seniority list of Senior Assistants in accordance with law and instructions dated 27.05.1996. ii) That the order dated 30th October, 2014 reverting the petitioner to the post of Superintendent (Ex Cadre) and promoting the respondent No.2 as Superintendent Grade-II be quashed and set aside with further directions to promote the petitioner as Superintendent Grade-II with effect from 30th October, 2014, with all consequently benefits. iii) That the respondents may kindly be burdened with costs. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 02.08.1985 whereas respondent No.2 was appointed on 1.10.1985. However, on account of respondent No.2 belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category, he came to be promoted as Senior Assistant prior to the petitioner in the year 1998, whereas petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2000. 3. As the petitioner was legible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, he was promoted as such on 3rd April, 2014, whereas respondent No.2 came to be promoted as Superintendent Grade (Ex-Cadre) on 13.10.2014. But strangely enough, the official respondent No.1 after promoting respondent No.2 reverted the petitioner. It is against this decision that the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of reliefs as quoted above. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant not by virtue of seniority in the feeder category of clerks, but was promoted by virtue of reservation. Therefore, when the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2002, the respondent No.2 was rightly shown to be junior to the petitioner. 5. This is based on the "catch up Rule" as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (1996) 2 SCC 715 which clearly envisages that where appointments are to be made only by promotion from single feeder cadre, inter se seniority of the persons so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre. Meaning thereby that the person senior in the feeding cadre shall, even though promoted after the promotion of person junior to him in the feeding cadre, to which they are promoted, regain the seniority, as it was in the feeding cadre. 6. The only exception to this Rule as carved out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) was that in case a person was promoted against the post of reserved category and was conferred with second promotion, the general category candidate will have no right to catch up with the reserved category candidate and claim seniority, otherwise general category candidate, would regain his seniority over and above junior employee of the feeder category, who was promoted earlier against the post belonging to the reserved category. 7. It is surprising to note that even though the petitioner was promoted as superintendent grade-II, much earlier to respondent No. 2 on 3.4.2014, yet the official respondent ordered the reversion of the petitioner for no plausible reasons. 8. Since the petitioner was promoted and rightly so as Superintendent Grade-II earlier to respondent No.2, therefore there was no occasion for the official respondent to have reverted him to the post of Superintendent Grade(ex-cadre) while promoting respondent No.2 as Superintendent Grade-II. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find merit in the instant petition and the same is allowed with the following relief:- i. The Seniority list issued on 30.08.2014 showing respondent No.2 to be senior to the petitioner is ordered to be quashed and set aside. ii. Respondent No. 1 is directed to issue seniority list of Senior Assistants afresh reflecting therein the name of petitioner over and above that of respondent No.3. iii. The office orders dated 30.10.2014 reverting the petitioner to the post of Superintendent (Ex-Cadre) is quashed and set aside. iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to promote petitioner as Superintendent Grade-II with effect from 30.10.2014 with all consequential benefits. v. Since the petitioner has been driven to unnecessary and avoidable litigations, therefore, he is held entitled to costs of litigation, which is determined at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by respondent No.1 These orders be complied with within a period of one month from today.