(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
State of Haryana and Another ______________________ Appellant(s);
v.
L.R. Bahmani and Others etc. _____________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s). 3498-3499/2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9454-9455 of 2015], decided on April 3, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Applications for impleadment; for deletion of proforma respondent Nos. 17 to 19 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9454 of 2015 are allowed. Application(s) for substitution of deceased respondent No. 12 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9454 of 2015 and deceased respondent No. 1 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9455 of 2015 is allowed subject to all just exceptions by condoning the delay and setting aside abatement.
2. Leave granted.
3. The writ petitions (Nos. 242 of 1999 and 5479 of 1999) out of which the present appeals have arisen were filed by a group of Taxation Inspectors belonging to the Haryana Civil Services. In the writ petition (No. 242 of 1999) the following reliefs, inter alia, were claimed:
(i) a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Rule 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department (Group-B) Services Rules, 1988 in so far as it envisages promotion from amongst Assistant and Senior Scale Stenographers (Ministerial Staff) to the rank of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer;
(ii) a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Rule 9(1)(b)(ii) in so far as it envisages separate quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer from amongst the Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State to have one common seniority list of Excise and Taxation Inspectors for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers and to make promotions from out of that list;
4. The High Court by the impugned order had struck down the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Haryana Excise and Taxation Department (Group-B) Services Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1988”) granting quota of 6.2/3% for promotion, from amongst Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers, to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AETO”). By the very same order the High Court also issued directions to the respondent – State to prepare one common seniority list of Excise and Taxation Inspectors for the purpose of promotion to the posts of AETOs. Aggrieved, the State is in appeal before this Court.
5. Limited notice was issued by this Court by its order dated 23rd March, 2015 confined to the issue of a common seniority list.
6. We have considered the matter. The High Court, while granting the second prayer made in the writ petition (No. 242 of 1999) and directing preparation of a common seniority list, did not record any discussion as to why it had thought it appropriate to grant the said relief to the writ petitioners. That apart, the Excise Inspectors, who have raised the question of prejudice before us, were not parties before the High Court. We are told at the Bar that the Excise Inspectors have filed an application for review before the High Court along with an application for impleadment and the said applications are presently pending before the High Court in view of the pendency of the present appeals.
7. On the aforesaid short ground that the High Court did not record any reasons for its impugned conclusions while granting the second relief and issuing directions for preparation of a common seniority list we deem it appropriate to set aside the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fuller consideration after hearing all the parties. We also make it clear that the order of the High Court insofar as invalidity of Rule 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1988 is concerned (promotion against the quota earmarked for Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers) may be understood to have attained finality in view of the order of this Court dated 23rd March, 2015 issuing limited notice insofar as the second relief i.e. preparation of common seniority list is concerned.
8. Consequently, we allow the appeals in terms of the above and set aside the order of the High Court with a request to the High Court to hear and decide the issue with regard to common seniority list of Excise and Taxation Inspectors for the purpose of promotion to the posts of AETOs as expeditiously as possible.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO(S). 9454-9455 OF 2015
State of Haryana & Anr ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
L.R. Bahmani & Ors. Etc __________________________ Respondent(s)
(FOR VACATING STAY ON IA 6/2016 FOR ON IA 7/2016 FOR DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT ON IA 9/2017[FOR FINAL DISPOSAL])
Date : 03-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Piyush Hans, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Thukral, Adv.
Mr. Arun Tewatia, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Mr. Manpreet Kaur Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Adv.
Mr. A. Ganguli, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR
Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Jyoti Ghildiyal, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
