IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16351 of 2005 Date of decision 14.8.2008 Chandi Ram and others. -----Petitioners. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others. -----Respondents. C.W.P. No.12367 of 2005 Date of decision: 14.8.2008 Mir Singh and others. -----Petitioners. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others. -----Respondents. C.W.P. No.15747 of 2005 Gulab Singh and another. -----Petitioners. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate (in CWP No.16351 /05) Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate (in CWP No.12367/05), Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate (in CWP No.15747 /05) for the petitioners. C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondents-HUDA. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Rathee, Advocate Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for private respondents. ---- JUDGMENT: 1. This judgment will dispose of CWP No.16351 of 2005, CWP No.12367 of 2005 and CWP No.15747 of 2005 as the issue involved in all the three petitions is common. For purpose of this order, we are making a reference to the record of CWP No.16351 of 2005. 2. Prayer in the petition is for quashing office order dated 3.6.2005, Annexure P.3 and notification dated 22.8.2005, Annexure P.4 vide which cadre of Junior Engineers and Sub Divisional Engineers in the Engineering Wing of respondent No.1, Haryana Urban Development Authority has been bifurcated into Civil cadre and Electrical cadre. 3. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are holding Diploma in Civil Engineering and degree in 2 C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 Mechanical Engineering while petitioner No.7 is holding diploma in Mechanical Engineering. All of them were appointed as Junior Engineers as per Haryana Urban Development Authority Service Regulations 1989. Next promotion is to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer out of Junior Engineers having diploma in Civil/Mechanical Engineering or equivalent with 10 years experience or 10 years experience as Assistant Draftsman/Head Draftsman Grade II/Head Draftsman Grade I or Junior Engineer/Draftsman with degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with two years experience as Junior Engineer/Draftsman or Associate Membership of Institute of Engineers degree in Civil Engineering with five years experience as Junior Engineer/Draftsman. Roster has been specified for promotion out of different streams. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 obtained degree of AMIE in Mechanical Engineering and thus became eligible for promotion as well as for direct appointment as per rules. However, employees having degree in Civil Engineering made a representation that only Civil Engineers should be considered as a 3 C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 qualification for promotion. They filed CWP No.12430 of 2004 which was disposed of on 17.8.2004 with a direction to decide legal notice of the petitioners therein by passing a speaking order. In view of the said order, order dated 3.6.2005 was passed deciding to bifurcate cadre of Junior Engineers into Civil and Electrical. Same was Annexure P.3. In the said order, it is stated that technical comments from National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and Engineer in Chief, HUDA were taken on the representation of the petitioners in CWP No.12430 of 2004 and it was decided that decision of Standing Committee dated 10.4.2004 for amendment of the rule be accepted and necessary amendments be made. This was followed by notification dated 22.8.2005 which had the effect of preferential treatment in favour of candidates having Civil Engineering diploma/degree. 4. In the reply, the stand taken is that there is no bar to amendment being made to Service rules from time to time and there is no vested right of promotion till the stage of 4 C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 consideration. The rules have accordingly been amended as per exigencies of service after considering the whole matter. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that bifurcation of cadre of Sub Divisional Engineers into two sub cadres – Civil and Electrical affects the promotion prospects of the petitioners. Those who have Mechanical Engineering degree have option to go to the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineers (Electrical) only, for which very less number of posts are now available. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the work of Urban Development Authority requires more Civil Engineers and, thus, candidates having degree of Mechanical Engineering have been given option to go to the cadre of Sub Divisional engineers (Electrical). 8. The question for consideration is whether change in service conditions which has the effect of adversely affecting the chances of promotion can be held to be illegal. 5 C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, beyond submitting that the amendment was arbitrary, have not been able to show any law which stands in the way of amendment to the rules which may affect the chances of promotion. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is no power to amend the rules. Only contention is that candidates having degree in Electrical Engineering will have lesser chances of promotion in future. 10. We are unable to accept the submission. 11. It is well settled that no employee has a vested right to chances of promotion. In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1974 SC 259,it was held that right to be considered for promotion was a condition of service but mere chances of promotion are not. Same view was reiterated in Mohammad, Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76, Reserve Bank of India v. C.T. Dighe, (1981) 3 SCC 545, State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, Reserve Bank of India v. C. N. Sahasranaman, 1986 (Supp) SCC 143 and Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 6 C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005 SCC 541. These decisions have been reiterated in later decisions including Chandra Gupta, IFS v. Secy. Govt. of India AIR 1995 SC 44. 12. In view of above, we do not find any merit in these petitions. 13. Dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 14, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ‘gs’ JUDGE 7