Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Chand And Others vs B.B.M.B. And Others on 17 May, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CWP No.1881 of 1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 17, 2013
CWP No.1881 of 1996
Gurdev Chand and others ...Petitioners
Versus
B.B.M.B. and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: - Mr. Arvind Galab, Advocate for Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana 1 To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2 Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest RITU BAHRI J.
This writ petition is for quashing the impugned selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 9. A further prayer has also been made to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lineman.
All the petitioners were working in Bakhra Construction Board as Beldar since 1992. They have been discharging the work as Lineman. Six vacancies of Lineman fell vacant and out of those 3 fell vacant on 24.11.1992, 30.09.1993 and 02.02.1994 which was prior to the (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 08.10.1994. Prior to the enforcement of (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1994, the post of Lineman used to be filled by promotion only. One Raj Kumar, who was employed as Beldar in B.B.M.B. On 16.04.1985 was promoted as Lineman on 21.11.1991 and the said Raj Kumar was 9th Passed only. Similarly, one Rattan Chand was employed as Beldar in B.C.B on 06.06.1965 and then CWP No.1881 of 1996 -2- in B.B.M.B. On 01.05.1984 as Beldar and was promoted as Lineman on 21.11.1991 and the said Rattan Chand was 4th passed only.
The precise grievance of the petitioner is that all the six posts were notified vide letter dated 09.08.1995 with the following qualification for the post of Lineman, which are reads as under:
"Matriculate or its equivalent and I.T.I. In the trade of Lineman. Higher qualification like Diploma in Electrical Engineering/ Degree Electrical Engineering, A.M.I.E. candidates will be considered only if they fulfill the minimum qualification and I.T.I. In the trade of Lineman."
The post of Lineman has been filled up by the Regulation dated 08.10.1994 whereby 50% posts can be filled up by way of direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. As per Regulation dated 08.10.1994 (P-2), Matriculate Assistant Lineman with five years' experience and non-matriculate Assistant Lineman with seven years' experience was eligible for the post of Lineman. Therefore, the petitioners were eligible to be promoted in 50% quota meant for promotion.
On notice, reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating therein that the petitioners are not eligible to be appointed as Lineman on the ground that Regulation came into force w.e.f. 08.10.1994 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Lineman, the requirement was that they should be Assistant Lineman with five years' experience or non-matriculate with seven years' experience. The precise case of the respondents CWP No.1881 of 1996 -3- that in the B.B.M.B., there was no cadre of Assistant Lineman, therefore, no appointment could be made by way of promotion. The necessary requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange, Talwara vide notification dated 11.07.95. The Selection Committee conducted the trade test and the successful candidates were interviewed and the candidate securing the merit both in trade test as well as in interview were recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Lineman. The selection of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 has been made under BBMB Recruitment Rules, 1994. The petitioners were not considered for promotion as they did not possess the minimum qualification for the said posts. Since there was no cadre of Assistant Lineman, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for being promoted under 50% quota is liable to be rejected.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 17.05.2013 Atul