IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.: 275 of 2005. Reserved on: 30.7.2008 Date of Decision: 4th August, 2008 Nehar Singh and others …Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioners.: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents.: Mr. R.M.Bisht, and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the original application filed by the petitioners herein has been rejected. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are class-IV employees of the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist, as they existed prior to their amendment on 31st July, 2003, 25% of the posts of Veterinary Pharmacists were to be filled in from amongst class IV employees of the department who had passed matric or its equivalent with science and who had five years experience as daily wager including one year service as regular or regular combined with ad-hoc service. The second essential qualification was that the candidates should have completed the Pharmacist Training Course as prescribed by the Government. The practice being followed in the department was that departmental candidates were sponsored for Veterinary Pharmacist Training and whenever such training took place about 25% seats in the training would be reserved for class-IV employees. On successful completion of the training, the department employees who had successfully completed the training would be appointed as Veterinary Pharmacist subject to availability of post. On 11th September, 2002 advertisement was issued for filling in 400 seats in the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. Out of these seats, 100 seats were reserved for class-IV departmental staff. Thereafter, a letter was issued on 13th September, 2002 that only the names of those employees who had passed 10+2 examination having done matriculation with science subject should be sponsored for training. A meeting between the representatives of the various unions and the departmental heads took place on 28.1.2001, wherein the unions were informed that class-IV employees having five years minimum service will be eligible for training with minimum qualification of matric with science. In the meantime, training regulations were modified. The Government entrusted the Chaudhry Sarwan Kumar H.P.Agriculture University, Palampur, with the task of conducting the entrance examination for the Veterinary Pharmacist course. The minimum education qualification was modified and it was directed that all the applicants should have passed 10+2 and should have done matriculation with science subject. Amendment was also made in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the amendment was notified on 10.5.2003 in which the quota of promotion for class-IV employees was reduced from 25% to 12-1/2% and the educational qualification raised from matric to 10+2 with science in matriculation. The petitioners filed the original application before the learned Tribunal claiming that the vacancies had arisen prior to the amendment of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and therefore, the petitioners who were matriculates should have been sponsored for training and that the respondents have committed an illegality in not sponsoring the matriculates and insisting that the departmental candidates should have qualified 10+2. The original application was contested and the learned Tribunal rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The main contention of Ms. Ranjana Parmar is that the practice being followed was that 25% of seats in Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course were being filled up from class-IV employees who were matriculates and according to her till the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were amended all the vacancies arising before the amendment of the rules should have been filled in on this basis. There is inherent fallacy in the argument. The petitioners are wrongly mixing up the Recruitment and Promotion Rules with the requirement of the minimum educational qualification for Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules do not lay down the minimum standard for admission to the educational course of Veterinary Pharmacist Training. The conditions with regard to the admission to a Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course fall in a different domain. They have no connection with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Once the State in consultation with the University took a conscious decision that only those candidates shall be permitted to sit for the entrance examination for the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course who had completed 10+2 and matriculation with science, even in service departmental candidates who were matriculates could not appear in the entrance examination. They did not possess the minimum qualification for the course. The minimum qualification for the course may be different than the minimum educational qualification required for the promotion. The main case of the petitioners is that since the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were not amended till 2003 departmental candidates who have done matriculation should have been sponsored for the course. This argument is totally baseless. Sponsorship for the course has nothing to do with the minimum educational requirements in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Even if, we accept the argument of the petitioner that the amended rules cannot apply to the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the rules, admitted fact is that none of the petitioners had successfully completed Veterinary Pharmacist Training prior to the amendment. The right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion would arise only after they successfully complete the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. Since, none of them had completed this training prior to the amendment of the rules they cannot claim that the amended rules are not applicable to the vacancies which occurred before the said date. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 4th August, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ). J. ™