CWP No. 6348 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 24332-24333 of 2008 and CWP No. 6348 of 2006 Date of Decision: April 22, 2009 Krishan Kumar Draftsman ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate for applicant-Madan Lal Saini. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM Nos. 24332-24333 of 2008 These applications have been filed by a General category Head Draftsman for being impleaded as a respondent on the ground that he is working as a Head Draftsman and that he is admittedly senior to the petitioner and, therefore, he should be impleaded as a respondent. CWP No. 6348 of 2006 2 In view of the decision I am proposed to take in the main writ petition it cannot be said that the applicant is either a necessary or a proper party. Consequently the same is dismissed. CWP No. 6348 of 2006 This petition has been filed for claiming that there are five posts of circle Head Draftsman which are to be filled up by promotion and as per the reservation policy the fourth post had to be filled up by a Scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner claims to be the only eligible scheduled caste candidate who can be considered for this promotion. In the written statement the issue regarding applicability of the reservation policy is not disputed. A plea has been taken that between the post of Draftsman and Circle Head Draftsman another post of Head Draftsman exists. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred me to the Haryana State Forest Department (Group C) Miscellaneous Section Rule 1998. In Appendix A annexed to these rules no post of Head Draftsman is mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this was an inadvertent omission and actually post of Head Draftsman is very much existing. I put it to the learned counsel that these rules are in force since 1.1.1998 and if there was some omission it was open to the respondents to have made appropriate amendment therein. The second plea taken is with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner. This Court is not to determine the eligibility of the petitioner to the post to decide whether as per the extant rules and reservation policy the 4th post had to be filled up by considering the case of eligible scheduled caste employees for promotion. Consequently this writ petition is disposed of with a CWP No. 6348 of 2006 3 direction to the respondents to consider the case of eligible Scheduled caste draftsman for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman w.e.f. the date 4th post was vacant. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 22, 2009 sunita