C.W.P.No.9937 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9937 of 2004 Date of Decision : 24.01.2008 Ajit Lal and others .....Petitioners versus Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd. And others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Aftap Singh, Advocate for Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 7. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Communication Annexure P-2 dated 1.6.2004 and Notification Annexure P-3 dated 22.6.2004, whereby Regulation 9 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965, was amended so as to contemplate 75% posts to be filled up from amongst Degree Holders Engineers with 5 years experience, whereas remaining 25% were to be filled up amongst Engineers subordinates i.e. Diploma Holders with 5 years experience. The petitioners are Diploma Holders working as Junior Engineers with the respondent-Nigam. The promotion to the post of C.W.P.No.9937 of 2004 2 Assistant Engineer (Civil) is governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The Regulation 9 of the said Regulations, as it stood prior to amendment on 22.6.2004, contemplates 22½% quota to be filled in by promotion amongst Diploma Holder Junior Engineers with 5 years experience; 12½% by promotion from amongst Degree Holder Junior Engineers having 5 years experience and remaining 65% by direct recruitment. By virtue of the amendment on 22.6.2004, the direct recruitment quota has been fixed as 25% for Diploma Holders by promotion, whereas remaining 75% quota was granted to the Degree Holders. The petitioners challenge the increase of quota of 75% in respect of Degree Holders as highly excessive and arbitrary. It is also challenged that two existing vacancies are required to be filled as per the unamended Regulation-9, but the same have been filled in from amongst the Degree Holder Junior Engineers by promotion, which is illegal. In respect of the first argument that 75% quota meant for Degree Holders is highly excessive, it is suffice to state that the manner of filling up of the posts, the quota for each categories of the feeder cadre etc. falls within the administrative discretion of the Rule making authority. Since Rule making authority has fixed 75% quota to be filled in amongst the Degree Holders and 25% from amongst the Diploma Holders, it cannot be said that the policy of such fixation of quota is arbitrary and unreasonable perse. There is neither any data or other material to substantiate the said plea. C.W.P.No.9937 of 2004 3 In respect of filling up of 2 posts arisen prior to amendment of Regulation-9 on 22.6.2004 from amongst the Degree Holders, it has been pointed out that there were 4 posts of Assistant Engineers in the respondent Nigam. Two posts fell to the quota of direct recruits and one each to the category of the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders to be filled up by promotion. The post of Degree Holders and Diploma Holders stands occupied. Whereas two posts of direct recruitment were vacant. Such two posts falling to the quota of direct recruitment have been filled in by promotion amongst the Degree Holders. It is, thus, evident that the sole post which fell to the share of Diploma Holders was occupied prior to 22.6.2004. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right of appointment to the post falling to the category of direct recruits. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has produced before this Court the details of the posts falling to the category of Diploma Holders and Degree Holders prior to the year 2004. As per the said details, one Partap Singh, the Diploma Holder is reflected to have occupied the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) at the time of notification of the Promotion Rules on 22.6.2004. Thereafter, three Degree Holders namely T.C. Purohit, M.P.Jain and S.P.Sharma are reflected to be holding the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Shri Partap Singh, Diploma Holder retired on 28.2.2005. After his retirement, Shri P.D.Sharma was promoted against the quota of Diploma Holders. Shri P.D.Sharma also retired on 30.4.2006 and against the said post, Shri Golak Parsad, another Diploma Holder was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Shri Golak Parsad retired on 31.7.2007. Similarly, after the retirement of T.C.Purohit, promoted against the quota of C.W.P.No.9937 of 2004 4 Degree Holders, the post was filled in by S.K.Singla, another Degree Holder. It has been also pointed out that Regulation-9 of the Regulations has since been further amended on 30.1.2007. The amended Regulation-9 contemplates 50% quota for direct recruits and 32% quota for promotion for Diploma Holders and 18% quota for Degree Holders. It is also pointed out that the promotion case to the post falling vacant after the retirement of Shri Golak Parsad is under consideration. In view of the said fact, we do not find that the action of the respondents in filling up the posts of direct recruits from amongst the Degree Holders can be said to be illegal and unwarranted which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 24-01-2008 *mohinder