IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.155 of 2010. Reserved on: 17.3.2011 Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Vinay Kumar Sharma & ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of H.P & anr. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioners: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 7. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- “1. That the Recruitment and Promotion Rules published vide annexure P-2 dated 30.10.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent by which the respondents have clubbed the categories of District 2 Panchayat Officers and Instructors with the category of Panchayat Inspectors and has been provided that the incumbents of the posts of District Audit Officer and Instructor shall be placed en-bloc senior/ above Extension Officer (Panchayat), (now designated as Panchayat Inspector) for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer and the respondents may further be directed to consider the quota of 5% mentioned in the notification to be available for Panchayat Inspectors only.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that prior to the promulgation of the impugned rules, the petitioners who are working as Panchayat Inspectors were eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Instructors and District Audit Officers. As per the Rules of 2002, against the promotion quota to the post of Block Development Officer, 5% posts were reserved for Panchayat Inspectors. 3. Vide amendment made to the Rules, 2002, in the case of this 5% quota which was 3 earlier meant only for the Extension Officers, i.e., Panchayat Inspectors, now District Audit Officers and Panchayat Instructors have also been included and the note given below the relevant rule reads as follows:- “The incumbents of the posts of District Audit Officer and Instructor shall be placed en-bloc senior/above Extension Officer (Panchayat), now designated as Panchayat Inspector for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer.” 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that by making this amendment in the Rules, the petitioners virtually have now no chance of being directly promoted as Block Development Officers. 5. Sh.R.K.Gautam, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously urged that this amendment is arbitrary and should be quashed. 6. There is no manner of doubt that the impugned amendment adversely affects the rights of the petitioners. However, the question which has to be answered is whether any fundamental right of the petitioners is 4 breached or is the action of the State arbitrary? In my view, the answer has to be in the negative. Admittedly, the District Audit Officers and Panchayat Instructors are posts higher in rank to that of Panchayat Inspectors. The Panchayat Inspectors are in fact in the feeder category for promotion to these posts. The post of Block Development Officer is higher to that of District Audit Officer and Panchayat Instructor. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the State including these two categories of District Audit Officers and Panchayat Instructors in the feeder category and since the persons manning these posts have already been promoted from amongst Panchayat Inspectors, they are obviously senior to the Panchayat Inspectors and must rank senior to them. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. March 21, 2011 (m) (Deepak Gupta) Judge