Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal Pahwa vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 November, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.16954 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.16954 of 2001 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 8.11.2011
Mohan Lal Pahwa PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri S.K.Sud, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Nehra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner deserves to be promoted as Superintendent Workshop. The petitioner was working as a Foreman Instructor and had more than 10 years experience and therefore, by virtue of reference to Rule 9, he contends that he is entitled to be promoted. Under the rules, 50% posts of Superintendent Workshop are to be filled by way of promotion and 50% by direct recruitment or transfer or from deputation. Rule 9 is reproduced here below :-
"(z) In the case of Superintendent Workshop
(i) 50% by promotion from amongst lecturers in C.W.P. No.16954 of 2001 -2- Production Engineering or Foreman Instructors, and
(ii) 50% by direct recruitment ; or
(iii) by transfer or deputation of an officer already in the service of any State Government or the Government of India."
Appendix "B" to the rules lays down academic qualifications and the eligibility conditions which a person has to fulfill before he can be considered for appointment as a Superintendent Workshop. Since the petitioner falls within the category of promotees, the relevant extract of Appendix "B" pertaining to the promotees is reproduced here below :-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Designation Academic qualifications and Academic qualifications and
No. of post. expereicne, if any, for direct experience, if any for
recruitment. appointment other than by
direct recruitment.
1. 2. 3. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Superintendent (i) First class Bachelor's degree (i) Bachelor's degree in Workshop in Mechanical/Production Engineering Mechanical/Production from a recognised University/ Engineering from a reognised Institute with 5 years experience in University/Institute.
the line ; or or
First class Diploma in Mechanical/ Diploma in Chemical/Production
Production Engineering in 3 years Engineering or 3 years duration
duration recognised by the State recognised by the State Board of
Board of Technical Education with Technical Education.
10 years experience.
(ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric (ii) 10 years experience as
standard. Lecturer in Production
Engineering or Foreman
Instructor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learned counsel for the petitioner with emphasis at his command, C.W.P. No.16954 of 2001 -3- has referred to the experience clause to contend that the petitioner is having more than 10 years experience as Foreman Instructor, and he was eligible to be promoted, but he very conveniently ignores the earlier prescription of the eligibility conditions which required a person to be holding a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical/Production Engineering from a recognised University/Institute or a Diploma in Chemical/Production Engineering in 3 years duration recognised by the State Board of Technical Education with 10 years experience.
When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order which has come into existence in the year 2006 pertaining to some Foreman Instructors who were promoted as Workshop Superintendent. He contended with reference to the order Annexure P-6 that since the persons so promoted were junior to the petitioner, the petitioner deserves similar promotion.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is completely misplaced. The petitioner does not have any of the prescribed educational qualifications and 10 years experience which have been prescribed in Appendix "B" to the rules. It is not a case where there is any provision for having a degree or educational qualification which is equivalent to the one which has been prescribed. The rules and the Appendix are silent on this. Thus, nothing more can be read into the statute. The plea of the petitioner that some persons junior to him have been promoted as Workshop Superintendent and thus, he deserves parity on this ground, also deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that it is not disputed that Foreman Instructor cannot be promoted as Workshop Superintendent, but the question is that an incumbent should be having the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Appendix, as extracted above. The petition is silent as to whether the persons who were promoted in 2006 after the retirement of the petitioner, were C.W.P. No.16954 of 2001 -4- possessing the requisite qualifications or not. In the absence of this material, the petitioner's case cannot be compared with those who have been promoted subsequent to his retirement.
Since the petitioner lacks educational qualifications and there is no demonstrated material to compare his case with those persons who have been promoted in the year 2006, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.
(MAHESH GROVER)
November 8, 2011 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO