IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P.-T No. 2650 of 2008 Date of decision: June 14, 2011 Arun Sood Petitioner Versus H.P.State Civil Supplies Corp. & ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge For the Petitioner: S/Shri Ajay Mohan Goel and Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocates For the Respondents : Mrs. Bhawna Dutta, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Varun Thakur, counsel for respondent No. 3. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner joined the respondent Corporation and at the relevant time he was working as Public Distribution Clerk. He approached this Court when he was denied promotion/appointment to the post of Computer Programmer. According to the petitioner though he was the person actually on the job and though he had also obtained qualification as prescribed by the Corporation, he was not considered for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer and the third respondent was appointed to the post. It is not in dispute that in 1997 there were no R&P Rules for selection and appointment to the post of Computer Programmer. It is also 2 not in dispute that the third respondent was a Senior Assistant at the relevant time. According to the petitioner, at the relevant time the third respondent did not have any qualification to hold the post of Computer Programmer. Learned counsel for the Corporation and the learned counsel for the third respondent, however, inviting reference to the documents available on record, submit that the third respondent was eligible, qualified and experienced to work as Computer Programmer. Be that as it may. In the absence of R&P Rules any appointment/promotion to the post could only have been ad hoc and in the ad hoc promotion, it was always open to the employer to appoint, among the available candidates more qualified, more suitable and more experienced person to the post. It is in that context, the fact that the petitioner was in the lower category as compared to the third respondent has assumed significance. 2. In 1998, it is seen, that R&P Rules were framed. It is seen from the Rules (Annexure PA) that feeder category has been restricted to Senior Assistant/Technical Assistant/Legal Assistant/Sales Supervisors/Senior Scale Stenographers / Personal Assistants / Senior Accountant Grade-I/Senior Assistant (Accounts)/Computer Operator having five years experience in maintenance of computensed accounts………… According to the petitioner, the classification has been made in such a way as to carve out the category of post held by the petitioner. We are afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. The post of Public Distribution Clerk held by the petitioner is admittedly in the lower category to the posts mentioned in the Rules. Therefore, 3 it is not a case of equals being treated un-equally. Conversely un-equals cannot be treated equally and, therefore, there is no basis in the contention that the category of post held by the petitioner has been left out while making classification. Hence R&P Rules do not suffer from any legal infirmity and in particular of infraction of principle of equality. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been working in the post of Public Distribution Clerk for decades and he has been stagnating. This is certainly a matter the Corporation should look into. Therefore, while holding that the R&P Rules are otherwise valid, the petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate representation before the second respondent detailing his grievances. In the event of such representation being filed within a month from today, including in the matter of stagnation, the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent and appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken within another one month. It will be open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the second respondent the experience he has gained in working in the Corporation so as to make him suitable for appropriate position. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice June 14, 2011 (K) ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge