IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.235 of 1998. Date of decision:23.08.2010. Paras Ram & Others … …Petitioners Versus NHPC and Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioners pray for relief of issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order for promotion to category of S2 Grade from the date on which they have completed four years service as Assistant Grade-I in W6 category and proper formulation of rational policy for fixing their seniority. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that by an order dated 8.11.1999, petitioners No.2 and 3 were allowed to withdraw from the petition. The Court granted this permission on that very day. 3. The case of the petitioners is that according to Rule 5A(ii), Ministerial/Office based staff in W6 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 grade having qualification of Intermediate/10+2 or equivalent from a recognized Institute with five years service in W6 Grade will be considered for Supervisory post (S2) subject to passing their trade test or Supervisory test, interview and availability of vacancy. It further continues that as a special dispensation, workmen as on 9.4.1997 in W6 and W7 Grade, who are Matriculate would also be considered for promotion in Supervisory Grade (S2) after completion of four years service in W6 grade. Their case is that despite this dispensation, they have not been considered for this post. 4. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents. In nutshell the case is that Rule 5A(ii) provides special dispensation with regard to educational qualification only i.e. instead of 10+2 or Intermediate, it is Matric and instead of five years experience in W6 Grade, it is four years for those workmen who have completed service of four years as on 9.4.1997. Further reply is that the workmen in W6 Grade are required to pass trade test and Supervisory test and thereafter they will be considered for promotion subject to availability of vacancies. It is also averred that the petitioners, if found eligible, will be considered along with the other eligible candidates. The exercise was in progress at the time when the reply was filed. This aspect of the case need not detain this Court any further. In LPA No.282 of 3 99, titled Amar Nath vs. National Hydro-power Corporation Ltd, decided on 8.7.1999, this Rule came up for interpretation. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir ruled:- “Heard learned counsel. Grievance made in this appeal is that judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1201/98 on 11th May, 1999 suffers from error and according to Shri Kazi interpretation given to para 5A of Revised Promotion Policy of Workmen, Teaching, and Para Medical Staff formulated by National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., vide No.PPL-672(A), dated 7th October, 1997 is not correct. With a view to properly appreciate submission urged at the bar findings recorded in that behalf by the learned Single Judge are extracted herein below:- “So far as the first argument is concerned, I am of the opinion that a reading of paragraph(ii) makes it apparent that special dispensation which is contemplated in the clause referred to above, is only vis-à-vis qualification and the period of service. The argument that this category of workmen has not to pass the trade test, supervisory test cannot be accepted. Only a limited advantage has been given of relaxation in the educational qualification and the length of service. For promotion to next grade they will have to compete with others. Any other interpretation would mean that person with lesser qualifications and experience are being given preference 4 over those who possess better qualifications. This would lead to a situation where lesser merit would steal a march over better merit. This would be against the very policy. The purpose of the policy is to bring about competition and then select the best. Any other interpretation would lead to a situation which would be open to challenge under articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. This has to be avoided.” On examination of sub-clause(ii) of para No.5A of policy (supra), it appears that intention of the respondents was to only allow a concession in the matter of educational qualification and experience and nothing more. In this behalf para 2.1.1 of the said policy is also relevant which is extracted herein below:- “2.1.1. On acquiring required educational and technical qualification, wherever applicable, workmen may be considered for appointment to respective induction levels of higher categories (i.e. from un-skilled/semi-skilled to semi-skilled/skilled category), subject to passing a trade test followed by supervisory and availability of posts in higher categories. A perusal of this para clearly indicates that on acquiring required educational and technical qualification, wherever applicable, workmen may be considered for appointment to respective induction levels of higher categories 5 “subject to passing a trade test followed by interview and availability of posts in higher categories” (Emphasis supplied). Appellants’ argument if accepted would mean that a person with lesser qualification and experience has to be promoted without trade test/supervisory test and interview vis-à-vis a person with higher qualification, longer experience and who had undergone trade test etc. This does not appear to be the purpose of the para 5A(ii) supra. An exception has been carved out in sub para (ii) of para 5A of the policy only regarding educational qualification and experience. Thus submission of Shri Kazi is without any basis that it should be read down in this sub para that requirement of undergoing trade test was also dispensed with. Besides this if this submission is accepted then word “considered for promotion” used in sub para (ii) supra will have to be substituted with the word “promotion”. Even otherwise on an over all examination of judgment passed by the learned single judge as well as of examination of the promotion policy we see no reason to take different view from the one expressed therein. That being so there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” 5. This interpretation was also placed on the Rule by the same Court in CWP No.1201 of 98, titled: 6 Girdhari Singh and Ors. vs. National Hydroelectric Project and Ors., decided on 11.5.99. 6. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioners cannot be promoted from Assistant Grade-I in W6 category to S2 Grade without qualifying the other requirements as provided in the Rules. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. August 23, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.