INDIRA VIJ versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 12-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDIRA VU 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF HARY ANA 
NOVEMBER 12, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Haryana Technical Education Department (Group A Service) Rules: c 
r. 9(/)(c)- Government Polytechnic-Post of Principal of Engineering 
Institute-Promotion to-Eligibility-English teacher, later became Head of 
Department in Applied Sciences-Claiming promotion as Principal of 
Engineering Institute-Held. Head of Department in Engineering would not 
include Heads of Department in Applied Sciences-Applied Sciences. cannot D 
be treated in the Engineering side-Therefore, claimant not eligible for 
being promoted as Principal of Engineering Institute-However, in view of 
amendment in r.9 by notification dated 23.3.2001, claimant's case should 
now receive consideration for promotion to the post of Principal on non-
Engineering side. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4717of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P.No. 7897of1997. 
E 
Ms. lndu Malhotra and Ms. Ruchi Khurana for the Appellant. 
p 
S.C. Patel, Praveen Kumar Rai and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether G 
the appellant who is Head of Department in the Applied Sciences, was eligible 
for promotion to the post of Principal of the Engineering Institute under the 
unamended Rules known as Haryana Technical Education Department (Group-
A) Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules). 
487 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was appointed as far back in 1975 as a lecturer in English 
in a Government Polytechnic for Women, Ambala. Subsequently, on 23rd of 
May, 1983 she was promoted to the next higher post of Head of Department 
in applied sciences. It is not in dispute that under the Rules no provision 
existed as regards grant of promotion to the head of the Department of non-
B technical institution to the post of Principal. 
The appellant with some other persons filed a writ petition No. 16160/ 
1990 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A Division Bench of the High 
Court by reason of a Judgment and order 18.3.1991 at the threshold dismissed 
the same on the ground that the petitioners being belonging to the Engineering 
C side as also being head of the Department thereof can claim for consideration 
for their promotion on that side. Subsequently a post of principal in 
Engineering Institute fell vacant. It appears that the appellant was promoted 
to the post of principal on Engineering side. 
Questioning the same a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
D came to be filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the 
promotion of the appellant on the ground that she was not eligible for being 
promoted to the post of principal in Engineering Institute. The High Court, 
after having found that the appellant was not eligible for being promoted to 
the post of principal in Engineering Institute, set aside the said order of 
promotion. It is against the said judgment of High Court, the appellant is in 
E appeal, by means of special leave petition, before us. 
Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant 
urged that the question as to whether the appellant belonged to the Engineering 
side or non-Engineering side has already been determined by the Division 
F Bench in Writ Petition No. 16160/1990 and thus the impugned judgment must 
be held to be bad in inasmuch as a coordinate Bench of the High Court could 
not have take a different view. Learned counsel would contend that in such 
a situation the only course left open to the High Court was to refer the matter 
to a bench of three judges. Learned counsel would contend that as no appeal 
was filed against the aforementioned judgment dated 25th March, 1991, it 
G attained finality and the State was bound thereby. 
H 
The said submission loses much of its relevance keeping in view the 
fact that the respondents herein were not parties to the said decision as by 
reason the wrong interpretation of the statutory rules at the threshold, the 
High Court could not have interfered with the rights of the third parties. 
INDIRA VIJv. STATEOFHARYANA 
489 
Furthennore, this Court independently is required to interpret the rules. It may A 
further be noted that the High court in its judgment in our considered opinion, 
has correc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.