Himachal Pradesh High Court
H.P. State Co-Operative Bank Employees ... vs State Of H.P And Others on 24 April, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:11213 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No.4754 of 2025
Decided on: 24th April, 2025
H.P. State Co-operative Bank Employees Union ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with
Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Addl.
A.G and Mr.Sushant Keprate,
Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1
and 2.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Raman
Jamalta, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner is employees Union and aggrieved by the amendment carried out in the rules, has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That by way of writ of certiorari the impugned Annexure P8 dated 21/01/2025 passed by respondent no. 3, Annexure P13 dated 21/10/2024 and Annexure P14 dated 18/012/2024 passed by respondent no.2 may kindly be set aside and quashed.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 2
(ii) That in alternate the respondents may be directed not to implement Annexure P8 qua the serving employee of the respondent no. 3 Bank for the purpose of their promotion in next cadre as their right for the said purpose got crystalized under un-amended rules.
(iii) That respondent may be directed to revisit the entire issue of introduction of HR policy in the respondent no. 3 bank after hearing all stake holder including the petitioner union whose representation's dated 20/08/2024, 10/10/2024, 24/02/2025, 27/02/2025 remained unattended and the respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the same in time bound manner."
2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he has accorded approval to amend Rules 7, 19(b), 21, 22, 23, 33, 34 and 61 of the H.P. State Co- operative Bank Employees (terms of employment and working condition) Rules, 1979, has caused prejudice to the employees, inasmuch as the right of consideration for promotion in each grade from top to bottom has been adversely affected.
3. However, the moot question is whether such a petition is maintainable? After all, the individuals who are not yet part of the cadre cannot claim rights based on policies enacted before their entry.
4. Moreover, it is open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including ( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 3 avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate.
5. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported and fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General and others, (2003) 2 SCC 632, more particularly, para 10 thereof, which reads as under:-
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing ( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 4 cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
6. We may also refer to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others, (2008) 9 SCC 242, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 37 observed as under:-
"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure ( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 5 or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration.
7. In this background, the Court must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint and should not encroach upon the Executive or Legislative domain, orders for creation of posts, appointment to these posts, regularization, fixation of pay-scale, continuation in service, promotions, curtailing avenues of promotions, prescribing different qualifications etc., all executive or Legislative functions and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere except in rare and exceptional cases. The relevant case law and philosophy of judicial restraint have been eloquently laid down by a learned Division Bench of Madras High Court in detail in Rama Muthuramalingam vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi and another AIR 2005 Madras 1.
8. In addition to the above, it is long settled that promotion is not a fundamental right, however, the consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. Nonetheless, the promotion can only be considered in terms of rules governing the service of the employees.
9. No mandamus can be sought against the provisions of rules, unless the same are arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. The petitioners are not in a position to ( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 6 contend that by virtue of the rules now framed, any vested right has been taken away.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions has held that the equality is the very bulwark of the provisions of the Constitution and in service jurisprudence, classification is a matter of necessity. The judicial pronouncements have sought to balance the equality principle with the principle of classification dependent upon the nexus for making the classification.
11. In the instant case, certain higher qualifications have been prescribed by the bank which some of the members of the association, who are employees of the bank do not possess. But then, higher qualifications have been repeatedly emphasized as an aspect which can give a exclusive promotion, earlier promotion or for that matter an accelerated promotion. Normally, a higher degree of qualification intrinsically would bring in certain skills and would undoubtedly be useful and have a close nexus with the job being performed.
12. Similarly, the question whether the difference in educational qualification is sufficient to give preferential treatment to one class of candidates against the others, is ordinarily left to the executive authority to decide, as they have expertise in administrative matters, as to who should examine ( 2025:HHC:11213 ) 7 this nexus, it has been left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities, who are best equipped to do so. Therefore, if a classification has been made basis on the educational qualification, which in this case, is AIIB, CPCB-I, CAIIB and CPCB-II/CTFC, in promotion process, the decision of the respondents to prescribe a classification on the basis of qualification of the incumbent to the concerned post, cannot be said to be unreasonable or having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved or being discriminatory.
13. In view of the discussion made above and the reasons stated hereinabove, we find the instant petition to be not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
April 24, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja )
(naveen) Judge