CWP(T) No. 6999/2008 31.03.2011 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Records perused and returned. Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief: “a) That the impugned order dated 13.1.2000 may be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be directed to make promotions to the 3 posts of Clerks against 10% quota with effect from January, 1998 with further directions to consider the applicants for such promotions and to promote them with all consequential benefits as Clerk w.e.f. January, 1998.” 2. According to Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents have not taken into account circular dated 20.8.1998 (Annexure R-IV), while filling-up the posts of clerks by promotion. 3. It is not in dispute that 10% of the posts of clerks are to be filled-up by promotion from amongst the employees belonging to Class-IV category. It is also not in dispute that the cadre strength of clerks, which originally was 54 in number, was bifurcated and the total cadre strength of clerks was reduced to 27 posts w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (though done on 1.9.1998). As per Rules, three posts were to be filled-up, upon promotion from amongst Class-IV employees. Respondents have explained that in the year 1998, these three posts were occupied by S/Sh. Inder Singh, Kehar Singh and Swami Ram. S/Sh. Inder Singh and Kehar Singh were subsequently promoted as Junior Assistants. These resultant vacancies were filled-up on the basis of promotion by S/Sh. Tan Sukh and Amar Singh on 27.3.1998. According to the petitioners, Swami Ram was a direct recruit and not a promotee. To this effect my attention has been invited to the provisional seniority list of Clerks (Annexure A-1). However, I have perused the records from which it is apparent that Sh. Swami Ram, in fact is a promotee and not a direct recruit. 4. Respondents issued circular dated 13.8.1997 (Annexure A-2), clarifying that all available vacancies be filled-up by granting one time relaxation to the extent of 20% posts. Relevant extract of Annexure A-2 reads as under:- “iii) The excess quota for promotion under the proposed one time relaxation shall be restricted to 20% posts of vacancies available in the concerned Departments within condition No. (i) above. iv) Officials for being promoted to the posts of Clerks under this one time relaxation must possess the following eligibility criteria:- a) Matric pass or Hindi Rattan with Matric (English as one of the subjects) or its equivalent. b) Five years’ qualifying service in the grade/ cadre.” 5. While filling-up the posts in question, the Departmental Promotion Committee, which held its meeting on 27.3.1998, took these instructions into account and accordingly, by applying roster point, recommended names of S/Sh. Tan Such and Amar Singh for promotion to the posts of Clerks. 6. The instructions are unambiguous and unequivocally clear. 20% relaxation is qua the number of “vacancies available” and not the “cadre”. There is no challenge to these instructions by the petitioners. In fact as of 1998, 2 seats out of 11 were already available which were required to be filled-up by promotion. There were no other vacancies “available in excess of the quota” which were to be filled-up by the promotees. The instructions could have been applied only in those cases where the available vacancies were in excess of the quota prescribed under the Rules. Consequently, I find no infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by the respondents. 7. Respondents have further claimed that as of now there are atleast 3 promotees who are occupying their posts in excess of the prescribed quota. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, prayer made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. Consequently, present petition is dismissed. March 31, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.