IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. NO. 615 of 2000 Reserved on : 8.4.2008 Decided on: 28.5.2008. Roshan Lal ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent No. 3 : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. RAJIV SHARMA, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.112/87. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner had passed his Diploma in Automobile Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar in the year, 1978. He was appointed as Instructor in Automobile Engineering in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? - 2 - Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar on 4.2.1980. He was confirmed in the same capacity on 27.11.1984. He did his AMIE (Section A & B) in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile as an elective subject in the year, 1984. The seniority list prepared as on 31.12.1984 was circulated on 6.7.1985. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, respondent No.3 was promoted and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Automobile Engineering in the pay scale of Rs.940–1850. The petitioner was also promoted as an Lecturer in Automobile Engineering in the pay scale of Rs.940–1850 on ad hoc basis vide Notification dated 19.10.1987. The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No.591/1986 before this Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 for the posts of Workshop Superintendent (Automobile) and the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1973 for the posts of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering), Lecturer (Auto.Engineering) and Workshop Superintendent, Polytechnic. The Writ Petition No.591/1986 was transferred to the learned State Administrative Tribunal and was assigned T.A. No.112/87. The learned Administrative Tribunal dismissed the T.A. on May 9, 2000. He had assailed the order dated 9.5.2000 by way of present petition. Mr. Shrawan Dogra had strenuously argued that the order dated May 9, 2000 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the respondent- State could not give preference to the incumbents holding qualification of Mechanical Engineering vis-à-vis, persons holding degrees /diploma in Automobile Engineering. He further contended that if the incumbents - 3 - holding the qualification of Mechanical Engineering can be considered for promotion to the Workshop Superintendent (Automobile Engineering) and Lecturer Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering both there is no reason why the petitioner can not be considered for promotion to the posts of Workshop Superintendent (Mechanical Engineering) and Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering. He has also challenged the vires of the amendments carried out in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules on the ground that they violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 had supported the order dated 9.5.2000. They had contended in unison that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the amendments carried out in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the year, 1974 since he was appointed as Instructor in Automobile Engineering only on 4.2.1980. They further contended that the amendments had been carried out in the R & P Rules in the year 1974 to the post of Workshop Superintendent ( Auto) as well as to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, Automobile Engineering and Workshop Superintendent, Polytechnic (Mech.) by taking into consideration that the subject of Mechanical Engineering is very vast and it encompass various subjects and the subject of Automobile Engineering is very narrow and the persons holding the qualification in the field of Automobile Engineering cannot impart education to the students in the field of Mechanical Engineering. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records carefully. - 4 - It is true that as per Rules notified on 15.5.1973 for the post of Workshop Superintendent (Auto), the minimum educational qualification was second class Bachelor’s degree in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering with “Automobile” as an elective subject with two years practical experience in Automobile workshop of repute. Similarly, as per rules notified on 30.7.1973 for filling up the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, the minimum essential qualification was Bachelor’s degree in Mech/Auto or equivalent. The minimum essential qualification for filling up the post of Lecturer Auto Engineering was degree in Auto/Mechanical Engineering with Auto as an elective subject with two years professional experience. The minimum qualification prescribed for Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnics as per 1973 Rules was Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical/Auto Engineering with two years practical experience in a Workshop of repute. However, vide notification dated 30.4.1974, amendment was carried out in the R & P Rules for the categories of Class I posts /services of Technical Education Department. It is evident from the amendments carried out in these Rules on 30.4.1974 that essential qualification for Lecturer Automobile Engineering was revised to degree in Auto Engg./Mech. Engg. with Auto as an elective subject. The minimum qualification for Workshop Superintendent (Mechanical) was revised to Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering with two years practical experience in a workshop of repute. The minimum qualification for Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering was revised to Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or equivalent with two years professional experience. The minimum qualification as per amendments carried out on dated 30.4.1974 for Workshop Superintendent - 5 - (Auto ) was second class Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering with Auto as an elective subject with two years practical experience in a workshop of repute. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate strenuously argued that the amendments carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to the categories mentioned hereinabove, is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and these amendments had adversely affected the avenues of the promotions of his client. Mr. R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General to the contrary had stated that amendments carried out in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the year, 1974 discussed hereinabove, are in accordance with law and no legal right of the petitioner has been taken away. The justification given by the respondents for carrying out the amendments in the rules is that the Branch of Mechanical Engineering includes the entire field of studies whereas Automobile Engineering is an narrow and specific field. The other reason assigned for effecting the changes in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules is that the incumbent holding the qualification of Automobile Engineering were not found suitable for the post of Workshop Superintendent in Mechanical Engineering since they could not impart specialized training to the students of Mechanical Engineering trade because of their specialized field. Similar is the justification for effecting the changes in recruitment to the post of Lecturers. The justification given by the State for effecting the changes in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules is justifiable and the same does not affect the conditions of service of the petitioner. The field of Mechanical Engineering being vast, the incumbents holding this - 6 - qualification are being considered for promotion in the stream of Automobile Engineering as well. The incumbents holding specialized qualification in the field of Automobile Engineering can only teach the students and impart practical training in this subject only. However, a person who holds a wider qualification like Mechanical Engineering is in a better position to impart training in all the subjects since he had studied other subjects besides the subject of Automobile Engineering. The vires of Rules can be challenged only if they violate any constitutional provision including Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution or any other statutory provision. The petitioner has failed to establish that amendments carried out in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in 1974 violates either Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. The persons holding qualification in the subject of Mechanical Engineering constitutes a different class and cannot be compared with the persons holding qualification in the narrow field of Automobile Engineering. The unequals cannot be treated equally. What should be the mode of recruitment for filling up the post or what should be the minimum essential qualification for the post, is to be prescribed by the Rule making authority. This Court will not substitute its wisdom for the judgment of executive. This Court will not interfere in the policy matters unless or until a very strong case is made out for interference on the touchstone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have recently held in T.N.Electricity Board and another Versus - 7 - T.N.Electricity Board Thozhilalar aykkiya Sangam, 2008(2) SLR, 809 as under: “Therefore, this is a matter of policy decision taken by the Board that henceforth the persons holding N.T.C./N.A.C. appointed as Helpers will have the channel of promotion to the technical post and not to the administrative post. It is true that prior to 1986 the persons who were appointed as Helpers were also appointed as Junior Assistants and Technicians in the office. After the decision taken by the Board Helpers have been appointed who only possess the NTC/NAC certificate. The Board has now channelised the promotions of these persons in the category of technical posts and not in the administrative posts. This is a policy decision taken by the Board and it has been incorporated in service regulation. Therefore, the candidates were recruited on the post of Helper possessing this qualification, their channel of promotion is only to technical post and there cannot be any doubt about it. This was categorical policy decision taken by the Board and therefore, the channel of promotion of these persons now will be only to the technical post and not to the administrative post. Therefore, this provision which has been made in the service condition cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary or violative under Article 19(1) (g) in any manner. This is a policy decision of the Board and it is the Board who has to decide that who will be suitable for the post and what should be the channel of promotion for such post. It is not for the incumbent serving as a Helper to insist that the Board should amend the regulation which suits him. It is the prerogative of the Board to decide that what shall be the - 8 - channel of promotion for technical and for non technical persons. In this case the Board had decided on a rational basis that the channel of promotion of technical persons will be on technical side and not on the administrative side. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in the case of P.U. Joshi and others Vs. Accountant general, Ahmedabad and others, reported in [2003(2) SCC 632] and this Court has very categorically stated that “There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” Therefore, in this view of the matter that the Board has decided to lay down a qualification for appointment to the post of Helper i.e. NTC/NAC and provided a channel of promotion for such persons to the higher post on technical side, such provision cannot be said to be ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1) (g).” In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts enumerated hereinabove, there is a reasonable nexus in the classification made on the basis of qualification and the object sought to be achieved. The persons having qualification of Mechanical Engineering constitute a different and distinct class vis-à-vis the persons holding qualification of Automobile Engineering. The object sought to be - 9 - achieved by carrying of the amendments in these Rules is that the students should be imparted proper education in the technical stream by a person who is better qualified. We are of the considered opinion that the amendments carried out in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the year 1974 whereby the field of consideration for filling up the post as mentioned above, have been restricted/narrowed qua the persons holding the qualification of Automobile Engineering are valid. The other aspect which is required to be gone into is whether the petitioner can be held to be in any manner aggrieved by the amendments which have been carried out in the year, 1974. The petitioner was appointed on 4.2.1980, the amendment in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules had already come into force from 30.4.1974. He has challenged the validity in view of these rules only in the year 1986, when respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Workshop Superintendent in Automobile Engineering in the pay scale of Rs.940 – 1850. His conditions of service are to be regulated as per the Rules which were in vogue at the time when he was appointed i.e. 1980. Consequently, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta), Judge. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. May 28, 2008. (GR)