IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 4800 of 2008 Reserved on.: 01.09.2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Bishamber Dutt and another … Petitioners. Versus HP State Electricity Board …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners by means of this petition have prayed that the respondent-board should have regularized their services either as Foreman or Junior Engineer (Electrical) and not as Sub-Station Attendants. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed that they be given appointment as Foreman/Junior Engineer w.e.f. September 1987 and May 1991 respectively and be paid their arrears. 2. The petitioner No.1 was engaged as a daily waged Foreman on 25.9.1987 whereas petitioner No.2 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 was engaged in the same capacity on 2.5.1991. They worked continuously as such till 21.3.1996 and 30.3.1997. The petitioners claim that they should have been regularized as Foreman/Junior Engineer since they fulfilled the requisite qualification for the said posts. The stand of the respondent is that the post of foreman is not a direct recruitment process as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by the board. Perusal of the R & P Regulations shows that the post of Foreman is a promotional post to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst helpers and Sub- Station Assistants. The board, therefore, regularized the services of the petitioners as Sub-Station Assistants and the petitioners joined in that capacity on 22.3.1996 and 31.3.1997 without any protest or demur. 3. I have heard Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Anjula Khajuria counsel for the respondent-Board. 4. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316, State of H.P. vs. Gehar Singh, LHLJ 2007 HP(SC) 363 and the judgement of this Court in Gauri Dutt and ors. Vs. 3 State of H.P. 366 LHLJ 2008(1) and urges that a person has a right to be regularized on the post on which he was working. In my opinion, these judgements are not applicable since in Mool Raj Upadhyaya a person could be regularized only after 10 years of service. The regularization of the petitioners have been ordered under a scheme of the Board wherein employees are considered for regularization after five years of service. The law is very well settled that Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be ignored while making such regularization. Persons like the petitioners joined as daily-waged employees without facing any selection procedure. They were virtually back door entries. They cannot now claim to be regularized against the same post without facing a proper selection procedure. There are many other persons in the State who may have the same qualifications but were never considered for promotion/appointment to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer. The petitioners, no doubt, are qualified to be junior engineers but they should have faced a proper selection procedure if they wanted to be appointed as Junior Engineer and cannot on the basis of their back 4 door entry pray that they be regularized as Foreman/Junior Engineer. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 22nd September, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.