IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1283 of 2002 Decided on : September 10, 2008 State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Petitioners. Versus Narain Singh Thakur …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State of Himachal Pradesh and the Additional Director General of Prisons, Himachal Pradesh, are not satisfied with the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal, dated 7th December, 2001, passed in Original Application No.1337 of 1997, whereby while allowing the aforesaid Original Application filed by respondent Narain Singh Thakur, a direction has been given to the writ petitioners to consider the claim of the respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail, w.e.f. 29th August, 1995, when he became eligible for promotion to the said post, with all consequential benefits. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. Respondent Narain Singh Thakur was appointed as Warder in Jails Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 1st July, 1971. He is matriculate. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Already there were other Warders, when the appointment of the respondent took place. All of them were under-matric. According to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Warders, with ten years service, are eligible for promotion to the next post, which is that of Head Warder. According to the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Rules for promotion to the post of Head Warder from amongst the Warders, preference is given to those possessing matriculation qualification. Since the respondent was a matriculate Warder, he alongwith another matriculate Warder, was promoted, ignoring his seniors, who were not matriculates. Promotion of the respondent was made on adhoc basis. The promotion order was withdrawn and the respondent was sought to be reverted, vide order dated 27th February, 1986. Respondent filed a writ petition in this Court, being Civil Writ Petition No.122 of 1986. This Court ordered the maintenance of status-quo and as a consequence of that order the respondent continued to officiate as Head Warder on adhoc basis. Lateron, the order of reversion was withdrawn by the writ petitioners, vide order dated 10th June, 1986. On account of the withdrawal of the order of reversion, writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed on 17th July, 1986, as having become infructuous. 3. It appears that non-matriculate Warders, who were senior to the respondents, were aggrieved by respondent’s adhoc promotion as Head Warder and they also filed a writ petition in the year 1985, which was registered as CWP No.1118 of 1985. That writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 3rd March, 1986, with the observation that the respondent and another matriculate Warder, who had been promoted alongwith the …3… respondent, being matriculate, had preferential right to be promoted as Head Warders, meaning thereby that the promotion of respondent as Head Warder was in a way approved by the Court. Respondent continued to officiate as Head Warder, on adhoc basis, till 18th March, 1995, when his promotion as Head Warder was regularized. Immediately thereafter, i.e. on 29th March, 1995, respondent made a representation that his entire service as adhoc Head Warder be counted towards further promotion as Assistant Superintendent of Jails. That representation remained pending with the writ petitioners upto 5th June, 1997, when it was rejected. The reason for rejection of the representation given by the writ petitioners was that according to the instructions issued by the Government, adhoc service rendered only upto 31st March, 1991, was required to be taken into consideration for further promotion, in combination with regular service. Respondent then filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal in July 1997. He challenged Government’s instructions, saying that adhoc service rendered only upto 31st March, 1991, was to be taken into account while counting minimum prescribed ten years service as Head Warder for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jails. It was alleged that the classification done by the Government for counting adhoc service, rendered only upto 31st March, 1991 and ignoring adhoc service rendered thereafter, was without any rationale and had no intelligible differentia. 4. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application holding that adhoc service rendered upto 31st March, 1991 and …4… subsequent thereto was qualitatively the same and, therefore, there existed no rationale for taking into account adhoc service rendered only upto 31st March, 1991 and ingnoring that rendered thereafter. Consequently, the learned Tribunal directed the writ petitioners to consider the claim of the respondent for promotion, from the date when he completed ten years service, including the entire adhoc service, as Head Warder. State has challenged this order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal. It is alleged that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to go into the policy of the State, fixing the cut-off date for counting adhoc service, for the purpose of promotion to the next post. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. From the factual background of the case, as narrated hereinabove, it is apparent that the promotion of the respondent as Head Warder, by superseding non-matriculate Warders, was approved by this Court in the writ petition filed by non-matriculate Warders, challenging respondent’s adhoc promotion as Head Warder. That means, the promotion of the respondent, even though branded as adhoc, was as good a promotion as regular. In any case, when the respondent had been promoted as Head Warder on adhoc basis and his adhoc service rendered upto 31st March, 1991, according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, was to be taken into account, while counting ten years service as Head Warder, we see no rationale behind the decision of the Government or the provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules not to take into account the adhoc service rendered subsequent to 31st March, 1991. Learned Additional Advocate …5… General has not been able to point out any reasonable basis for fixing the cut-off date nor has he shown any nexus between this cut-off date and the object sought to be achieved by fixing this date. 7. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no scope for judicial review of the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 10, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.