IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.3162/2008 Reserved on: 30.8.2010 Decided on: 14.9. 2010 _____________________________________________ Harjit Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in District Shimla on 10.10.1972. He was confirmed on 31.5.1981. He was absorbed in Wireless Organization on 16.4.1982. He passed Grade-III examination in the year 1983/1984. He also filed original application (OA (M) No. 554/1994). The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Director General of Police. He rejected the same on 11.7.1995. Petitioner has approached the Court 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes for quashing of order dated 11.7.1995 with a further direction to the respondent-State to promote him as Head Constable after 1983-1984 when he qualified Grade-III Operator Course with further prayer that he should be deemed to have been appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Wireless Organization prior to the year 1986. Respondent-State has filed a detailed reply and supplementary affidavits, as directed from time to time. Case of the respondent-State is that in Wireless Organization, no Recruitment and Promotion Rules have been framed and in order to promote efficiency, the criteria has been adopted whereby Grade-III Operator Course is the basic course for Constable and he has to qualify Grade- II Operator Course for being considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable and from the post of Head Constable he has to undergo Grade-I Operator Course for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. 2. Mr. D.P. Gupta has strenuously argued that his client was required to be promoted to the post of Head Constable after he had qualified the Grade-III Operator Course in the year 1983-84 and thereafter as Assistant Sub Inspector when he qualified Grade-II Operator Course. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has qualified Grade-II Operator Course in the year 1989 and he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1989. He qualified Grade-I Operator Course on 11.2.1994 and was promoted on 25.6.1994 as Assistant Sub Inspector. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. A specific stand of the respondent-State is that it has not framed any Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the condition of service of the employees posted in the Wireless Organization. The respondent-State has issued executive instructions on the basis of which constable is required to pass basic Grade-III Operator Course and thereafter he is required to pass Grade-II Operator Course for being considered for the promotion of Head Constable and after putting in three years of service as Head Constable, he can appear in Grade-I Operator Course for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. Petitioner passed the Grade-III Operator Course in the year 1983-84. He has passed Grade-II Operator Course in the year 1989 and promoted on 1.5.1989 as Head Constable. He became eligible for appearing in Grade-I Operator Course after putting in three years of service as Head Constable. He did not qualify the same and was placed in compartment. It is also pertinent to take note that in the year 1988, petitioner could not qualify the Grade-II Operator Course in first attempt. He qualified Grade-I Operator Course on 11.2.1994 and was promoted on 25.6.1994 as Assistant Sub Inspector. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. D.P. Gupta that the persons junior to his client have been promoted. In fact, there were no facilities available for Grade-I Operators Training Course in the State and Head Constables, who had qualified Grade-II, and they were promoted in the year 1987 with a rider that they will qualify Grade-I course. These candidates had qualified the Grade-I examination afterwards. Respondents No.4 to 7 were promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector when the petitioner was merely working as Head Constable. He had qualified the Grade-I Operator Course in the year 1994. In these circumstances, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector before the private respondents. 6. The facts of the case of Bhagat Ram were on different footing. He was qualified and his case was considered for promotion and was promoted accordingly. The promotion of the executive police is governed by the different set of rules and the promotion of the Wireless Organization is on a different footing. It is settled law that the employer can make promotions in the absence of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and there is only one pre-condition that the instructions/guidelines are not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this case the executive instructions issued by the Department have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Wireless Organization is a technical organization and the persons are required to possess the technical skills. In these circumstances, for promotion to the post of Head Constable, Constable is required to qualify Grade-II Operator Course and for further promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, he has to qualify Grade-I Operator Course after putting in three years of service as Head Constable. The Director General of Police has passed a well reasoned order on 11.7.1995 and is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.9. 2010 *awasthi*