IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11687/2008 Reserved on: 1.6.2011 Decided on:15.6.2011 ___________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar and others. …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation. …Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioners, working as Junior Technicians in the respondent-corporation, have assailed the seniority lists, as it stood on 31.3.1997 and 31.3.2000 vide Annexures A-3 and A-4, respectively. Petitioners have also challenged the Himachal Road Transport corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’ for brevity sake). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that the seniority of the Junior Technicians could not be clubbed with the Workshop Helpers. Petitioners have also claimed that for the post of Fitter, only Junior Technicians should be considered as feeder category. 2. The Regulations, as noticed above, have come into force with effect from 23.3.1996. A bare perusal of these Regulations makes it abundantly clear that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Technicians/Workshop Helper in respondent-corporation are the same. They are put in Class-IV. The pay scale of the Junior Technician is ` 950-1800 with initial start of ` 1,000/- and the pay scale of Workshop Helpers is ` 800- 1455. The minimum qualification for the post of Junior Technician is matric pass from a recognized University/Board with I.T.I. certificate in the relevant trade and the minimum qualification for the post of Workshop Helper is middle pass from a recognized school with five years experience in the relevant trade. 3. Mr. M. C. Verma has strenuously argued that the Junior Technicians be classified as Class-III on the basis of their qualifications and pay scale. He then contended that the seniority list of Junior Technicians and Workshop Helpers should be drawn separately and the 3 post of Junior Technician should only be treated as feeder category for promotion to the post of Fitter. 4. Mr. H.S. Rawat has vehemently argued that the Regulations have been framed in conformity with section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. He then argued that the seniority list of Junior Technicians and Workshop Helpers has been prepared as per the norms prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules. He further argued that the seniority list was initially published in the year 1997 and thereafter in the year 2000 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2005, as such, the same suffers from delay and laches. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Mr. M.C. Verma has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-1 whereby Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Technicians and Workshop Helpers have been notified. The minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Technician is matric pass from a recognized University/Board with I.T.I. certificate. The Junior Technicians were placed in the pay scale of ` 950-1800 with initial start of ` 1000/- and the Workshop Helpers have been placed in the pay scale of ` 800-1455. The minimum qualification 4 prescribed for filling up the post of Workshop Helper is middle pass with five years experience. The revision of pay scale of Junior Technicians and Workshop Helpers has taken place with effect from 1.1.1996. Petitioners were placed in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160 and the Workshop Helpers were placed in the pay scale of ` 2720- 4260. According to office memorandum issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 3.5.2001, the posts in initial entry revised scales of pay with maximum ranging between ` 5160 to ` 10,639/- have to be placed as Class-III and posts carrying initial entry revised scales of pay the maximum of which is less than ` 5,160/- have to be placed as Class-IV. Petitioners have been placed in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160 and Workshop Helpers have been placed in the pay scale of ` 2720-4260. The Court is of the considered view that on the basis of Annexures A-7 dated 3.5.2001, the petitioners were required to be put in Class-III instead of Class-IV. It is not the case of the Corporation that the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time are not followed by the respondent-Corporation. 7. The post of Junior Technician/Workshop Helper is treated as feeder category for promotion to the post of Fitter on the basis of combined seniority list of Junior Technicians/Workshop Helpers. It is evident that 5 the respondent-corporation has treated equals as unequals. The category for which the higher qualification is required and is placed in the higher pay scale has been equated with a category where lower qualification is prescribed and is also put in the lower pay scale. It is for the respondent to constitute a cadre and the scope of judicial review in such like matters is very limited. However, in case the constitution of the cadre is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is unreasonable, the Court can look into the matter. 8. In the instant case, the post of Junior Technician could not be equated with the post of Workshop Helper. The Regulations whereby the posts of Junior Technician and Workshop Helper have been clubbed are arbitrary and unreasonable and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The joint seniority list of Junior Technicians and Workshop Helpers was issued vide Annexure A-3, as it stood on 31.3.1997, which was followed by another seniority list vide Annexure A-4, as it stood on 31.3.2000. Admittedly, there is delay in challenging the seniority lists issued in the years 1997 and 2000, respectively. The present petition has been filed in the year 2005. Moreover, in the case in hand, the petitioners have not arrayed the persons, who are likely to be affected if the 6 seniority lists Annexure A-3 and A-4 are quashed and set aside. It is settled law that in case the seniority is to be altered, the persons who are likely to be affected are to be heard being necessary parties. Annexures A-3 and A-4 cannot be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that the necessary parties have not been added as party- respondent. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to assail the seniority lists Annexure A-3 and A-4 after impleading the necessary parties in the appropriate forum, if so advised. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent- corporation to re-look into the matter for separating the category of Junior Technicians from Workshop Helpers and also to consider the case of the petitioners for being placed as Class-III instead of Class-IV on the basis of higher qualifications for all consequential benefits, including promotion etc. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 15.6. 2011 *awasthi*