C.W.P No. 11989 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 11989 of 2008 Date of decision : April 28, 2009 Raj Kumar and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 The petitioners seek issuance of directions to the respondents to promote them as Inspector Legal Metrology as per quota in the ratio of 20:80 from the date of notification No.54 of 2001 of the Haryana Food and Supply Department (Legal Metrology Organization) Sub Office Clause `C' Service Rules 2001 (for short “the Rules”). The petitioners were appointed as Manual Assistants on various dates. Their next promotion is to the post of Inspector Legal Metrology. Prior to the amendment of the Rules, the promotion quota and the direct C.W.P No. 11989 of 2008 ::2:: quote was in the ratio of 50:50. However, after amendment of the Rules in 2001, the promotion quota was reduced to 20:80. The petitioners requested the respondents to promote them under the amended promotion quota as the vacancies fell vacant after 5.4.2001 but to no avail and hence the present writ petition. The defence of the respondents is that at present the sanctioned strength of Inspector Legal Metrology is 28 and as per 20:80 ratio, six posts are meant for promotion quota and 22 posts are meant for direct quota. It is further averred that in all 21 posts of Inspector Legal Metrology have been filled up, out of whom 13 are from direct quota and 8 are by way of promotion and, therefore, two Manual Assistants have already been promoted in excess of the cadre of Inspector Legal Metrology meant for promotion quota. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the quota has to be worked out on the vacancies and not on the number of posts. In CWP No.9825 of 1989, Balwan Singh and others vs The State of Haryana and others, decided on 17.7.1990, the learned Single Judge of this Court had framed the following question :- “ The sole question that arises in the present writ petition is whether on amendment of a rule or on promulgation of a new rule which repeals the earlier rule and fixes a quota for filling up the posts amongst the promotees and direct recruits (whereas there is no quota for the direct recruits at all in the earlier rules) such a quota would be applicable to the vacancies which arise after the amendment/promulgation of the rules or it has C.W.P No. 11989 of 2008 ::3:: to be applied taking into consideration the strength of the cadre on the date of the amendment/promulgation of the rules.” This question was answered in the following terms :- “ The answer to the above question is that the quota which has been prescribed under the amended or the new rules, would be applicable to the vacancies arising after the amendment/promulgation of the new rules without taking into consideration the number of posts held by promotees prior to the enforcement of new Rules.” In an appeal against the aforesaid judgment, bearing LPA No.1155 of 1990, State of Haryana and another vs Balwan Singh and others, decided on 26.11.1992, this exposition of law has been upheld. It may be noticed that the case cited relates to the same department viz. Haryana Food and Supplies Department. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners as Inspector Legal Metrology as per the quota framed under the Rules for vacancies which may have occurred thereafter without reference to the number of promotees who may have been promoted under the old Rules. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 28, 2009. JUDGE `kk'