IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 1991 Date of decision:08.12.2009 Tek Chand Shridhar, Assistant Engineer (E&M) ....Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukar, CGSC, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Electrical and Mechanical) drawn up on 30.09.1985 in the establishment of Border Roads Development Board, where the petitioner had been working. The writ petition also contains the challenge to two communications of the Director General Board Roads to the Chief Engineer, Pushpak on 27.05.1987 and a letter from the Chief Engineer, Pushpak referring to recognition of certain technical qualifications of diploma courses. The prayer for quashing these two communications have been on the alleged basis that by virtue of these two communications, the diploma certificate, which the petitioner had, Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 1991 - 2 - having qualified in surgical instrument manufacturing technology and allied trade to be not recognized. On such a basis, it is alleged by the petitioner that he had not been given the due promotion and refers to instances when his juniors RRC Rao and RG Sharma had been promoted to the post to the post of AEE (E&M) and that the petitioner should be granted promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted. 2. The response to the writ petition was that as one time measure the relaxation of rules had been made and although the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, he had been granted the promotion and it was not possible to give further promotion to AEE post. The statement makes a contention that a certificate issued by the Punjab University is not recognized and that the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare dated 12th October, 1978 recognized only certain class of certificates and required additional papers to be cleared in order that the diplomas were to be recognized. The contention of the respondents was that the petitioner’s certificate did not qualify for such recognition. The learned counsel appearing for the Union would also contend that a specific communication had been addressed on 27.05.1987 by the Directorate General Board where the certificate of the petitioner had been considered and they had decided with reference to the communication of the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Education dated 1st April, 1987, decided that the certificate cannot be recognized as equivalent to a diploma. The communication dated 1st April, 1987 on the basis of which the diploma Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 1991 - 3 - was purported to have been not recognized addresses the issue of recognition of technical qualification to certain class of certificates, which is reproduced as under :- “With reference to your letter No.25235/AE(E&M)/ 441/DGER/EID, dated 25.02.1987 on the subject noted above, I am directed to inform you that diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Surgical Instruments Technology awarded by the State Board of Technical Education Haryana from 1973 to 1979 and awarded by the Director of Industrial Training Haryana from 1967 to 1972 to the following conditions:- Students who have in Surgical Instruments Technology course take up an additional paper in Manufacturing Technology within five years from 12.10.1978 (date of issue of the office memorandum and obtains a revised diploma.” 3. It could be noticed that the said communication from the Assistant Education Officer deals with diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Surgical Instruments Technology) awarded by the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana from 1973 to 1979 and awarded by the Director of Industrial Training, Haryana from 1967 to 1972, and shall states that the certificates shall be considered for recognition on a further condition that the students, who have passed Surgical Instruments Technology course were required to take up an additional paper in Manufacturing Technology within 5 years from 12.10.1978 and obtain a revised diploma. The requirement of having to take an additional paper and obtain a revised diploma attaches only to persons, who held diploma in Mechanical Engineers (Surgical Instruments Technology) between the years 1973 to 1979 awarded by the Haryana State Board and for diplomas obtained between the years 1967 to 1972 awarded by the Director of Industrial Training. This requirement cannot be expanded to Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 1991 - 4 - diplomas which the letter does not refer to. The diploma, which the petitioner has, relates to a certificate issued by the Department of Industries, Punjab after the final diploma examination held in July, 1957 and if it is to be noticed that the petitioner’s certificate does not fall within the particular years which are mentioned in the communication dated 1st April, 1987, there is no basis for contending that the certificate was not recognized. Clearly there has been a misreading of the fact of the communication covered under the letter dated 1st April, 1987 which forms the bedrock for the alleged non-recognition of the petitioner’s certificate. The respondents have misdirected themselves to de- recognize the certificate on parameters which were inapplicable to the petitioner’s certificate. 4. If the certificate was valid, the only question was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the Assistant Executive Engineer’s post. The learned counsel refers to the recruitment rules for the post of Executive Engineer and extracted from No.35, dated 12th January, 1970 to show that 8 years regular service in the case of diploma holders as the requisite qualification for being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. If he did possess the qualification, having entered the service more than 8 years prior to the date when he became eligible for consideration for promotion, the denial of such promotion when his juniors were promoted, offends the fundamental tenet of service jurisprudence. The prayer that the petitioner has sought for quashing of Annexures P-7 and P-9 which are mere communications that referred to the recognition of Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 1991 - 5 - certificate, is quite unnecessary, for the reason that the petitioner’s case does not come for reckoning on the touchstone of either P-7 or P-9. If the petitioner has been denied the promotion at the requisite time when juniors were promoted, the petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted from the date when his juniors namely RRC Rao and RG Sharma had been promoted. Learned counsel states that after the filing of the petition, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation in the year 1993. Consequently, the petitioner shall be notionally promoted and the additional emoluments and the benefits corresponding thereto on his superannuation shall be re-worked and given to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of this judgment. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.12.2009 sanjeev