Roshan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.2377 of 2011

C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010                                                                            -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 27.09.2012
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010
Roshan Lal and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.2377 of 2011
Satyawan and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.23173 of 2010.
Mr.C.R.Dahiya, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.2377 of 2011.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
By this order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions i.e.
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 and C.W.P.No.2377 of 2011 as common questions
of facts and law are involved therein.
For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP
No.23173 of 2010.
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -2-
Petitioners have approached this Court asserting that they were
appointed as JBT Teachers in pursuance to the selection made in the year
2000 and that the JBT Teachers who were appointed in the subsequent
batches in pursuance to the selection held in the years 2001 and 2004, have
already been promoted to the posts of Masters/Mistresses according to the
statutory Rules. Petitioners have been denied the said benefit only on the
ground that their selection is under challenge before the Supreme Court and
the matter has been entrusted by the Supreme Court to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short 'CBI') for determining the genuineness of the two
lists, which are purported to be available on record, as to which one should
be given effect to. This, counsel for the petitioners, contends cannot be
made a ground for not considering the claim of the petitioners for promotion
especially when till date the petitioners formed the cadre of JBT Teachers,
they are continuing as such. He places reliance upon the order passed by
this Court in CWP No.10970 of 2009 Anil Kumar and others vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 10.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) and prays for
issuance of the same directions.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that
the claim as made by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot be
accepted in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the
selection of JBT Teachers of the year 2000 which is pending before it. He
contends that it has been observed by the Supreme Court in its order while
entrusting the investigation to the CBI that on the result of the enquiry
would depend the fate of these two sets of persons. It is only one set of
persons which would be found to be genuine and hence entitled to hold the
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -3-
posts of teachers and the persons from list, if found to be false, shall have to
make room for the others. He, on this basis, contends that the claim of the
petitioners for promotion cannot be granted. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
As is apparent from the assertions made by the counsel for the
parties, petitioners belong to the 2000 Batch of selected JBT Teachers.
They are serving with the respondents since the date of their appointment.
Subsequent to the selection and appointment of the petitioners, selection of
JBT Teachers has been made in the years 2001 and 2004, of which selected
and appointed candidates, have already been given promotion on the posts
of Masters/Mistresses. Petitioners are being denied promotion merely on
the ground that the matter pertaining to their selection is under challenge
and pending consideration before the Supreme Court wherein a CBI enquiry
has been marked. Nothing has been placed on record which would entitle
the respondents for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners for
promotion. That apart, whether the list from which the petitioners have
been appointed or the other list is a genuine list, has to be determined and at
this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been selected wrongly
and there is nothing on record which would suggest that their appointment
and selection are not in consonance with law as of now.
In the light of the above and taking these aspects into
consideration, this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) had disposed of the
writ petition with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of
C.W.P.No.23173 of 2010 -4-
the petitioners for promotion in terms of the eligibility criteria laid down
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order. The stand of the respondents in the present writ petition also
cannot be accepted for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the
present writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of
Masters/Mistresses in accordance with law, within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
September 27, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam JUDGE