IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2384 of 1988 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Satpal Dhiman & others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S.K. Tamak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This writ petition was filed in the year 1988. No written statement was filed and the writ petition was allowed and LPA was preferred by the respondents along with which an application for permission to file written statement to the original writ petition was also annexed. However, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. In SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case back for fresh decision. The petitioners' claim that they had become eligible for promotion in the year 1985 on account of having obtained A.M.I.E. Degree in Civil Engineering and were thus entitled to a quota of 10% under Rule 6 of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules 1970. However, because of illegal diversion of posts to direct CWP No.2384 of 1988 -2- quota in the year 1971, 1972 & 1973, they could not be promoted. Rule 6 lays down as follows: “6. Recruitment to Service -(i) Recruitment to the Service for cadre and ex-cadre posts shall be made in the following manner only from the sources listed below in the proportions and the order indicated against a lot of every 40 vacancies. Method of Recruitment Proportion Allocation to each source in a lot of 40 vacancies 1 Direct Appointment 26 5 6 5 5 5 2 Promotion from the members of the (Haryana Public Works Deptt. Irrigation Branch) Overseers (Engineering) Service percentage of civil & mechanical members shall be 18% & 2% respectively. 8 2 1 2 1 2 3 Promotion, from draftsmen, members of the Draftsmen & Tracers Service 2 1 - - 1 - 4 Promotion from members of the HPWD (Irrigation Branch) Overseers (Engineering) Service and the Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen & Tracer Service possessing qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'B' 4 - 1 1 1 1 Total 40 8 8 8 8 8 (ii)In case suitable candidates are not available from source No.4 the vacancies shall be filled from sources 2 & 3. (iii)In case a candidate is not available from sources 1 & 3 and a person has, to be appointed, in public interest as a stop gap arrangement, from other than the allotted source, such a person shall be liable to be reverted to his original cadre when a candidate from the allotted source is available and the CWP No.2384 of 1988 -3- period of service rendered by such person shall not be reckoned for the purpose of seniority.” Even if it is accepted that posts were illegally diverted in the year 1971, 1972 & 1973 to the direct quota, the petitioners cannot succeed unless they pray for setting aside the appointments which as per them were illegally made by wrongly diverting the quota to direct recruitment. Apart from the facts that no such prayer has been made in the writ petition, it is doubtful whether such a prayer could have also been made in the year 1988 after such direct recruits had been in office ranging from 17 years to 15 years. It may be mentioned that the writ petition as originally filed was not on the basis on which it has been argued today. At the time when the writ petition was originally filed the case was made out that the petitioners apprehended that their quota would be filled up from some other feeder cadre. However, as noticed above the argument raised today is that their quota was illegally diverted not to another feeder cadre but direct recruits. In view of the arguments raised today, this writ petition must fail. Neither the direct recruits who may have been appointed as the result of the vacancies diverted to direct recruitment are a party nor is any such prayer made in the writ petition. This is not to say that what the petitioners are alleging is incorrect, but only to notice that in the circumstances even if it is correct that the respondents illegally diverted the posts to direct quota, no relief can be granted to the petitioners who CWP No.2384 of 1988 -4- admittedly became eligible for the posts more than 15 years after such diversion. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. January 30, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE