IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.170 of 1999. Judgment reserved on: 12.8.2008. Date of decision: 3.9.2008. Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner.: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. for respondents 1&2. Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate for R-3. Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 18th January, 1999 whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Kanungo (Sales) in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department and joined as such on 22nd June, 1985. It is not disputed that in this Department there are three posts of Naib Tehsildars. Out of these three posts, one post is known as Section 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and the other two posts are known as Naib Tehsildar (Sales). There are different recruitment and promotion Rules for these posts. According to the petitioner, though the R&P Rules for these two posts are different but the Rules are virtually identical in all respects. The petitioner also alleges that the State has been treating both these posts as interchangeable and has placed on record various orders whereby the petitioner has at different times held the post of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and has also functioned as Section Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales). Under the Himachal Pradesh Tehsildari Service Rules, 1973 as amended in the year 1985, though the category of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) has been included in the feeder category for consideration for appointment to the post of Tehsildar, but the post of Section Officer-cum- Naib Tehsildar (Sales) has not been so included. The petitioner filed an O.A. before the learned Tribunal claiming that since the Department itself has been treating the posts as interchangeable and the petitioner at various times had functioned as Naib Tehsildar (Sales), he was eligible to be promoted to the post of Tehsildar but the respondents were not considering his case for promotion only on the ground that the post of Section Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales) does not fall in the 3 feeder category for Tehsildars. This case was contested by the State and the stand of the State is that as per the Tehsildari Service Rules only the post of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) has been included in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Tehsildar. It is contended that the posts of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and Section Officer- cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales) are different posts and therefore the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Tehsildar. The learned Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioner and hence he has approached this Court. We have heard Sh.Dalip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents 1&2 and Sh.Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. There can be no manner of doubt that as far as the Tehsildari Rules are concerned, by way of amendment made in the year 1985, only the post of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) has been included in the feeder category for consideration for promotion to the post of Tehsildar. There is also no dispute that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) are different from the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Section Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales). However, according to the petitioner the Rules are identical in all 4 respects and therefore the term Naib Tehsildar (Sales) should include the post of Section Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales). This Court cannot go behind the Rules. For better or worse, the Tehsildari Rules provide that only the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) will be in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Tehsildars. The petitioner in his Original Application had only prayed for the grant of following reliefs: “1.That the impugned recommendations of DPC, whereby against the roster point No.15 meant for Class-B Tehsildari candidates under rules 17 of the Tehsildari Rules, only the name of respondent No.3 has been considered and name of applicant has been excluded from such consideration may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to consider the name of applicant for Class-B Tehsildari Candidate against roster point No.15 with all consequential benefits. 2.That if during the pendency of present application respondent No.3 is selected and appointed as Class-B Tehsildari candidate against roster point No.15, in such an event, his selection and appointment may be quashed and set-aside and respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to consider the applicant for such selection and appointment from the same date, from which the respondent No.3 may be considered and appointed, with all consequential benefits.” The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Rules. His only claim is that wherever under the Tehsildari Rules the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) is to be considered then the Section Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar (Sales) should also be considered. This argument cannot 5 be accepted. It is for the Rule making authority to frame the Rules. If the Rules according to the petitioner were arbitrary or violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India he could have challenged the said Rules. These Rules have not been challenged. The interpretation given to the Rules by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the clear-cut language used in the Rules. The learned Tribunal rightly held that under the Rules as they exist the petitioner was not eligible to be considered. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 3, 2008 ( V. K. Ahuja ), J. PV