IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.490 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.8.2009 Ashok Chauhan & others. -----Appellants Vs. Government/State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, seeking quashing of amendment to the rules revising the qualification for promotion to the post of Accountant. 2. The appellants are Matriculates. They joined service of the Cooperative Bank in the year 1980 as Clerks. They were promoted as Junior Accountants in the year 1992. Next promotional post is that of Accountant. Prior to 1988, services of the appellants were governed by the Haryana State Cooperative Bank’s Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1976, which LPA No.490 of 2009 provided qualification for the post of Accountant to be Matriculation, apart from experience. The said qualification was revised to Graduation in the year 1988. The appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post of Accountant prior to amendment. 3. Grievance of the appellants was that the amendment, revising the qualification, was arbitrary. Plea of discrimination was also taken on the basis of averment made in para 5 of the writ petition, to the effect that some persons were given promotion even after amendment of rules. The Bank contested the petition and submitted that mere revision of qualification to Graduation could not be held to be arbitrary. Discrimination was denied. It was mentioned that the employees already promoted prior to amendment of rules, could not be reverted and for future, the rule was valid. 4. Learned Single Judge held that revising qualification for future could not be held to be arbitrary or illegal. It was further held that there was no discrimination. During the course of hearing before learned Single Judge, an instance was given on behalf of the appellants that one Surinder Singh Bhiyan was given promotion as Junior Accountant on 25.8.1988 and as Accountant in the year 2003. This contention was rejected as the promotion of Surinder Singh Bhiyan to the post of Accountant was after the rules. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 LPA No.490 of 2009 7. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the seniority of the appellants could not be affected though they had no right to any particular position as held in P.Mohan Reddy v. E.A.A. Charles and others AIR 2001 SC 1210. 8. We do not find any merit in the contention raised. The case of the appellants was that amendment, revising the qualification, was arbitrary, which could not be substantiated. In the judgment relied upon, after referring to the earlier judgments, it was observed that the employee cannot claim to have a vested right to have a particular position in any grade, though he has right to claim his seniority in accordance with the rules. In present case, seniority is not the issue but issue is revision of qualification for promotion. 9. We are of the view that learned Single Judge rightly held that mere revision of qualification from Matriculation to Graduation by amending the rules, did not affect any right of the appellants. Service conditions can be legally changed by amending rules from time to time unless rules are otherwise invalid. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 13, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3