Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 September, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /1/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: AUGUST 13, 2013
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 6th , 2013
Harbhajan Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The petitioner, who is serving as Junior Draftsman under the Department of Irrigation, State of Punjab, has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 2.4.2012, Annexure P15, whereby his claim for being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer has been rejected. Further prayer is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent-authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer with effect from the date Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /2/ his juniors have been so promoted.
2. Under the Punjab Public works Department (Irrigation Branch) Overseers, Engineering State Service Class-III Rules 1997, for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer not less than 10% of such posts in the service are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Junior Draftsmen and Surveyors who have an experience of working as such in the Department for a minimum period of five years and who have obtained diploma in Civil or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering from a recognized Institution.
3. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Junior Draftsman on 17.7.1997. Upon obtaining due permission, the petitioner pursued a diploma course in Mechanical Engineering from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) Mumbai and completed such course in the year 2006. Vide letter dated 15.3.2010, the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Punjab had written to the Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Shahpurkandi Township, Pathankot for forwarding the names of the eligible candidates for consideration for promotion to the posts of Junior Engineer from the cadre of Junior Draftsman/Surveyors against the 10% quota prescribed under the statutory Rules. The petitioner being duly eligible had also applied for being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and his application was duly forwarded by the Executive Engineer Township Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi Township along with the relevant documents and summary of his ACRs.
4. It is further pleaded that the respondent-Department duly considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /3/ post of Junior Engineer along with other eligible officials, but his case was kept pending subject to verification of his diploma by the University Grants Commission. As University Grants Commission did not respond, a number of other officials were duly promoted to the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 15.3.2011 at Annexure P8 while the case of the petitioner was kept pending. Placed on record is a seniority list of the Junior Draftsman working in the Irrigation Department at Annexure P3 wherein the name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No.311, whereas the officials junior to him at Serial Nos.313, 318, 319, 321, 328, 329 etc. were promoted as Junior Engineers in the light of order dated 15.3.2011 at Annexure P8.
5. Since the claim of the petitioner was not being finalized, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.216 of 2012 which was disposed of on 4.1.2012 with the directions to the respondents to consider his claim and to dispose of the representation, that the petitioner had already submitted, by passing a speaking order within a period of four months.
6. In purported compliance of the orders dated 4.1.2012 passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 2.4.2012 at Annexure P15 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer on the basis that his diploma in Mechanical Engineering is not from a recognized Institution.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied for information from the Ministry of Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /4/ Home Resource Development, Government of India, under the provisions under the Right to Information Act and he had been supplied a letter dated 13.5.2011 along with a notification dated 24.11.2006 issued by the Ministry. Learned counsel would advert to such notification at Annexure P9 in which it was clarified that the recognition of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) Mumbai had been withdrawn in the year 2002, but such Institute had been permitted to approach the Ministry for recognition of the diploma/degree course only after removal of all deficiencies pointed out by AICTE. Thereafter, a High Level Committee had re- considered the matter in a meeting held on 16.10.2006 and it was decided that the recognition of the courses run by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Mumbai be restored w.e.f. 16.10.2006 and upon such recognition, the courses shall be conducted based on new syllabus approved by the All India Council for Technical Education. However, it was also decided that the students who were registered prior to 10.6.2002 for part-I and II of Technical Engineers (Diploma level) and Section A and B of Associate Membership Course (Degree level) will be allowed to complete the course under the pre-revised syllabus till the next scheduled examination to be held in December 2006. The degrees/diplomas of such students would be recognized for employment under Central Government, and such students who do not complete their courses by December 2006, would have to follow the revised syllabus. Learned counsel by placing reliance upon such notification dated 24.11.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, would contend that Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /5/ the petitioner having registered prior to 10.6.2002 in the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Mumbai and having completed and qualified the diploma prior to December 2006, his qualification was duly recognized. Further reliance has been placed upon memo dated 6.3.2007 at Annexure P16 issued from the Office of Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (Technical Education Wing), Chandigarh whereby the Government of India notification dated 24.11.2006 has been taken note of and the Managing Director, Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited had been informed that the technical/professional qualifications recognized by the Government of India for purpose of employment shall also be recognized by the Punjab Government. Learned counsel has also referred to information supplied by the University Grant Commission vide letter dated 20.4.2011 at Annexure P10 whereby University Grant Commission itself has conveyed that it does not recognize diplomas which are in the field of Engineering. Learned counsel would argue that in the light of notification dated 24.11.2006, Annexure P9, as also clarification issued vide memo dated 6.3.2007, Annexure P16, there would be no justifiable basis in holding that the qualification of the petitioner is not from a recognized Institution and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 2.4.2012, Annexure P15.
8. Even a plea of discrimination has been raised by referring to the categoric averments contained in para 11, sub para (i) wherein the instance of Vijay Kumar, Junior Engineer, who has been promoted as Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /6/ 16.12.2008, has been furnished who is stated to be possessing the qualification of diploma and subsequently, degree level course from the same very Institute i.e. Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Mumbai. It is further averred that a number of other employees have also been granted promotion on the basis of the diploma and degree passed from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Mumbai. Learned counsel would contend that the action of the respondent-authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel would advert to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and would justify the passing of the impugned order dated 2.4.2012 on the same very basis that has been disclosed in the order itself. It has been argued that a clarification with regard to the qualification possessed by the petitioner had been sought from the All India Council for Technical Education and the Council had responded vide letter dated 9.3.2012 at Annexure P19 which was to the following effect:
"F.No.22-1218/2012-21533-34 To The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab Chandigarh - 160017 Sir, This has reference to your letter No.822-23/2NGE- 1/2012 dated 16.2.2012. In this regard, it is to inform that Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai through distance education is not under the approved list of AICTE.Malik Sushama Rani
2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /7/
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
( A.K.Shukla)
Regional officer."
10. That apart, learned counsel would state that the petitioner had not even supplied the original registration/membership slip to substantiate that he had been registered with the Institute of Engineers(India), Mumbai prior to
10.6.2002. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been rightfully held to be ineligible for being promoted to the post of Junior Engineer as his diploma qualification is not from an approved Institution.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that there has been a lack of application of mind while passing the impugned order dated 2.4.2012, Annexure P15. I take this view for the reason that even though the notification dated 24.11.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Resource Development, Department of Higher Education has been noticed, but the contents and effect thereof have not even been discussed. In such notification, it had clearly been decided that the students who were registered prior to 10.6.2002 for part-I and II of Technical Engineers (Diploma level) would be allowed to complete the course with the pre-revised syllabus till the next scheduled examination to be held in December 2006 and their diploma would be recognized for employment in the Central Government. The categoric case of the petitioner was that he stood registered with the Institute on 20.4.2002 and had completed his diploma in the year 2006 itself and a certificate to such effect had been Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /8/ issued by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers on 11.10.2006. Such benefit contained in the notification dated 24.11.2006 in favour of the petitioner has been brushed aside by merely stating that he has not supplied the original registration/membership slip dated 20.4.2002. Non-production of such slip in original cannot be made the basis of taking a view that the diploma qualification held by the petitioner is not recognized. It would be pertinent to notice that vide memo dated 6.3.2007 issued by the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Annexure P16, the notification dated 24.11.2006 issued by the Government of India was clarified to the extent that the professional/technical qualifications recognized by the Government of India for purpose of employment would also be recognized by the Punjab State. Insofar as the clarification from the All India Council for Technical Education dated 9.3.2012 is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record letter dated 30.10.2012 appended as Annexure P21 along with the replication, wherein the Council has informed the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act that the diploma/degree in Engineering awarded by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering (India) is not approved/recognized by AICTE. It has further been mentioned that such subject is also not under the purview of AICTE.
12. Clearly, a view would have to be taken in the matter as to whether the notification, dated 24.11.2006, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Annexure P9 would hold the field insofar as recognition of the diploma qualification of the Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /9/ petitioner is concerned, coupled with the clarification dated 9.3.2012 issued by the AICTE at Annexure P19 as also the subsequent letter dated 30.10.2012 at Annexure P21 issued by the Council itself. Such issue would require to be resolved at the end of the respondent-Department itself.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.4.2012 at Annexure P15 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Engineer (Drainage) Irrigation Works, Punjab to consider the issue as regards recognition of the qualification of the petitioner afresh in the light of the documents/notification noticed in this order. Respondent No.2, while taking a final decision, shall also take into account the fact as to whether any other official possessing the diploma/degree from the same very Institute i.e. Institute of Engineers (India) Mumbai has been granted promotion to the post of Junior Engineer or a higher post under the respondent-Department so as to redress the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner. Let such exercise of re- consideration be finalized within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioner to produce before respondent No.2 the requisite proof as regards having registered with the Institute prior to 10.6.2002 as also submit copies of all the letters/ memos/ notifications that have been noticed by this Court.
14. It is further directed that in the eventuality of the petitioner being held to be possessing the valid/recognized qualification, then his case for promotion to the post of Junior Malik Sushama Rani 2013.09.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8287 OF 2012 /10/ 10/ Draftsman shall be considered w.e.f. 15.3.2011 i.e. the date his juniors have been so promoted and he would also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
15. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
th
SEPTEMBER 6 , 2013 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2013.09.10 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document