IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7266 of 2008 with CWP(T) No. 7270 of 2008. Date of Decision : September 24, 2010 1. CWP(T) No. 7266 of 2008 Meenan Sharma and another Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents 2. CWP(T) No. 7270 of 2008 Meenan Sharma and another Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in both the petitions) For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents (in both the petitions). Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CMP(T) No. 430 of 2010 in CWP(T) No. 7266 of 2008 Application allowed. Amended memo of parties taken on record. 2. CMP(T) No. 431 of 2010 in CWP(T) No. 7270 of 2008 Application allowed. Amended memo of parties taken on record. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. CWP(T) No. 7266 of 2008 There is no dispute that the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer fell vacant prior to 1992 when the relevant Rules applicable for filling up the said post were amended by the respondent. The original unamended Rules applicable to the post in question were notified by the Government on 20.12.1973 (Annexure A-3). Annexure-I of the said Rules lays down the following criteria for filling up the post of Tehsil Welfare Officers:- Tehsil Welfare Officers Degree from a recognised University with at least three years experience in any correctional Institute. Age no bar. Educational qualifications relaxable upto matriculation Higher Secondary from a recognised University/Board having at least five years experience in their respective posts. From amongst the following categories having at least three years experience in their respective posts. Male Social Workers: ….. ……… …75% Clerks:……..25%. 4. Petitioner’s case for promotion for the said post, as is evident from the reply filed by the respondents, was not considered for the reason that when the post was sought to be filled up he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of service. 5. The respondents wanted to fill up the post as per the amended Rules. This stand is obviously contrary to the settled position of law and the material placed on record. 6. Petitioner was initially appointed as Male Social Worker on 18.2.1985. Uninterruptedly he continued to serve as such till his 3 services were regularised in terms of order dated 27.9.1994 (Annexure A-1). He ought to have been regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment but however this was not so done by the respondents. They themselves rectified the error in terms of letter dated 8.12.1996 (Annexure A-2) from which it is evidently clear that the petitioner’s service as Male Social Worker were regularised w.e.f. February, 1985. 7. The post in question fell vacant in the year 1992. At the relevant time the Rules as notified in the year 1973 were applicable. [Y.V. Rangaiah & others versus J. Sreenivasa Rao & others (1983) 3 SCC 284; State of Rajasthan versus R. Dayal & others (1997) 10 SCC 419 and A. Manoharan & others versus Union of India & others (2008) 3 SCC 641.] 8. Even though services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 18.2.1985 in terms of letter dated 8.12.1996 but however this would not make any difference. In terms of the Rules as reproduced hereinabove what was required of a candidate was “experience” of a Male Social Worker. There is no requirement of regular service. 9. Consequently petition needs to be allowed. A direction is issued to the residents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion as Tehsil Welfare Officer against the vacancy which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules for which petitioner was otherwise eligible for consideration. Needful be positively done 4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Consequences shall follow. CWP(T) No. 7270 of 2008 10. In view of the aforesaid order, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition [CWP(T) No. 7270/08] has become infructuous. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 24, 2010 (PK)