IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2846 of 2008. Decided on: 3.8.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Pyare Lal Sharma … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2. : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is seeking regularization against the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering after his appointment on ad hoc basis on 19.10.1987. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan has strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion in the year 1989 on the basis of his educational qualification which he acquired in the year 1984. He then contended that one Shri J.C. Verma was not eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering. He lastly contended that the respondents should have regularized the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that there is no provision for regularization of persons who were appointed as ad hoc Lecturers in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules. He then contended that the recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering is regulated under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for Class I post in the Technical Education Department. He further contended that the petitioner was not eligible in the year 1987 for being promoted to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on the ground that he was required to possess five years’ experience after obtaining TTTI Diploma in the year 1984. He lastly contended that respondent No.2 became eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1989 after passing his AMIE (Mechanical) Examination in the year 1987. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator on 30.8.1979. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Demonstrator on 17.10.1978. In the seniority list of Demonstrators, the petitioner ranks below respondent No.2 as it stood on 31.3.1990. The Departmental Promotion Committee met in the year 1992. The names of the petitioner and respondent No.2 were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In view of the various orders passed in Original Applications, the appointment orders qua the petitioner and respondent No.2 could not be issued. Respondent No.2 was regularized as Lecturer on 8.10.1994. The petitioner has made representation against the convening of 3 Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1992. He preferred an original application No. 661 of 1995. The same was treated as representation to be decided by the competent authority. The same stood rejected on 19.7.1995. It is borne out from the records that the petitioner was not eligible for being considered for promotion in the year 1987 on regular basis. He was not possessing minimum length of service in the year 1987. He has passed TTTI Examination in the year 1984 and has become eligible along with respondent No.2 in the year 1989. He was considered for promotion on ad hoc basis and appointed Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 19.10.1987. He resumed his duties on 19.10.1987. The petitioner has no right to be regularized de hors the rules. The person has to be considered for appointment/promotion strictly as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing for the post in question. The persons who are appointed on ad hoc basis cannot seek regularization in contravention of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. A bare perusal of Recruitment & Promotion Rules reveals that the appointment to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Mechanical Engineering was 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment. The persons to be considered for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering must possess the essential qualification prescribed under the Rules. In these circumstances, there is no force in the submission of Mr. K.C. Sankhyan that his client should have been regularized after his appointment as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on ad hoc basis with effect from 19.10.1987. Respondent No.2 has been promoted on 4 regular basis on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission. His appointment cannot be faulted with. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (T.E.) by a self contained order. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary (T.E.) has come to the right conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of essential qualification as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1987. In these circumstances, he could not be regularly promoted/appointed in the year 1987 as claimed by him. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 3, 2009. (cr)