CWP No. 6148 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6148 of 2011 Date of decision:- 06.04.2011 Gurpreet Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh, r/o Kamal Colony, Street No. 5, Khanna Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana, working as Beldar, Block Machhiwara, District Ludhiana and another. ...... Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is against the provisions of Clause V, Serial No. 14, Appendix B of the Punjab Agriculture Department (Field Office) Group – C Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2010') by which the criteria for promotion from the post of Beldar to Agriculture Sub Inspector has been altered to incorporate the requirement of Beldars being Matriculates. Under the earlier Rules i.e. Punjab Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules, 1933, the eligibility for promotion was that a Beldar should be literate. A decision of the Apex Court in High Court of Delhi and another Vs. A.K. Mahajan and others, 2011(1), SCT, 194 has been CWP No. 6148 of 2011 2 relied upon in support of the challenge made. In the aforesaid judgement, the Apex Court has held that there is no vested right of being considered for promotion and, therefore, the retrospective nature of the amendment of the eligibility conditions will not be invalid. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, relies on the said decision to support the proposition that benefits already given cannot be retrospectively altered. Having read and considered the judgement of the Apex Court, we are of the view that while the first proposition is clear and unambiguous, the second proposition i.e. accrued benefits cannot be taken away retrospectively will not apply to the present case in as much as a right of consideration for promotion cannot be understood to be a benefit. According to us, the only grievance that the petitioners can entertain is with regard to the applicability of the Rules of 2010 to vacancies that had occurred prior to the said Rules coming into force. The said grievance would, however, require adjudication by a Single Bench. When the said fact was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioners it has been submitted that the petitioners had already filed a writ petition i.e. CWP No. 1583 of 2011 which was refused to be entertained by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Rules of 2010 have not been specifically challenged. As a copy of the said writ petition i.e. CWP No. 1583 of 2011 has not been placed before us we are not aware of the details of the challenge made therein. However, if the limited prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition CWP No. 6148 of 2011 3 was for operation of the Rules of 2010 prospectively and not retrospectively, we do not see how the petitioners can be faulted for not challenging the validity of the said Rules. However, as the order of the learned Single Judge is still in force, it will be open for the petitioners to file an appeal against the said order, if they are so advised. It is only after such appeal is filed that the necessary corrections can be made by the Appellate Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any prima-facie ground to admit this writ petition challenging the vires of the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2010. Writ petition, therefore, is not being entertained and it is disposed of in terms of the directions and observations made above. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 06.04.2011 Amodh