H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Vidya Namta And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

These appeals have been preferred by appellant-HIMUDA against common judgment dated 28.7.2022 passed by learned Single Judge CWPOA No. 3291 of 2019, titled as Vidya Namta Vs. HIMUDA; CWPOA No. 4004 of 2019, titled Vidya Sharma Vs. HIMUDA; and CWPOA No. 4500 of 2019, titled Devi Parkesh Vs. HIMUDA, whereby reversion of petitioners from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Clerk has been quashed and set aside, mainly on two grounds that the appellant-HIMUDA has not adopted same yardsticks for the promotion of incumbents to the post of Senior Assistant in Review DPC dated 9.2.2015 and subsequent regular DPC held on 23.8.2017; and that petitioners were initially promoted on 2.6.2012 and 11.7.2012 in furtherance to the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 31.5.2012 but before their reversion in the year 2015, no notice was given to them and, therefore, the impugned order has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and thus not sustainable.

Record has been produced. We have also perused the record of the Writ Petitions and gone through the material placed before us. We have also heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is case of appellant that, in the year 2012, ten persons including petitioners-respondents were promoted as Senior Assistants and out of them five persons, including petitioners were not having requisite length of service required for such promotion and, therefore, on receiving the complaint in the year 2014 they were reverted back in the year 2015.

It is admitted fact that in subsequent DPC held in the year 2017, out of 15 officials recommended for promotion, only few were eligible and majority were ineligible and those ineligible persons were promoted after relaxing the criteria provided in Recruitment and Promotion Rules. There is no answer on behalf of appellant for adopting different yardsticks by it in considering the validity of promotion of the petitioners and during promotions in subsequent DPC in the year 2017, but not granting relaxation for similar situated employees in the year 2012, but granting relaxation in 2017.

It is settled that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, Power to relax, conferred upon the competent authority, cannot be exercised arbitrarily but is to be exercised for manner treating similarly situated persons in the same manner.

In present case, as also recorded by learned Single Judge, in the same circumstances with respect to similarly situated persons, in one case appellant had exercised power to relax, whereas in another case instead of saving promotion already done by exercising such power, petitioners have been reverted back, that too without following principles of natural justice. It is also noticeable that practically petitioners were never reverted back as they were protected by interim order dated 13.3.2015 passed by the Court. As on date they are working as such.

It is admitted position that different yardsticks have been adopted by the appellant-HIMUDA on two different occasions dealing with similarly situated persons and that too without following the principles of natural justice.

We do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Hence impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

Accordingly appeals are dismissed, being devoid of any merits, and disposed of.