1 S/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1703/2008. [BEER SINGH NAGAR VS. B.S.N.L. & ORS.] Dated : 11.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.H.K.Sidhu for the petitioner. ***** Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenge the Notification Annex. P-9 by which Rules were amended. The petitioner has further challenge Annex.P-5 by which the petitioner representation to allow him to appear in the Selection was then rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide Annex. P-9, respondents made amendment in the Rules which are having contradictory provision and thus deserves to be struck down more specifically Column No.12 of the Schedule providing requirement of qualification even for promotion as otherwise provided for a direct recruitee. Whereas in Column No.9, the Rule provides that the essential qualification for promotion would not be same as of the direct recruitee, therefore, Columns Nos. 9 and 12 to the Schedule are having self contradiction. For that reason, a challenge to the Rule was made before Allahabad High court successfully however, after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the respondents went in S.L.P. And the judgment of the Allahabad High Court has already been stayed. Thus, the said judgment became inoperative. Prayer of the petitioner is that even if he is not in a 2 possession of the required qualification, should be allowed to appear in the selection for promotion i.e. by way of limited internal competitive examination. It is lastly contended that petitioner even made a representation to permit him to appear in selection but then his representation was also rejected. Though Rule provides that the Company may in its discretion to give relaxation in the required qualification. The prayer of the petitioner is that thus by setting aside the notification Annex.P-9, petitioner be permitted to appear in the selection. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not in dispute that Rule challenged herein was a subject matter of challenge before the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.73843/2005 but then Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 03.0-7.2006 granted interim order and vide order dated 12.03.2007 not only leave was granted but operation of the stay was continued. By virture of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, at present , the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be given effect more so when as per the order of Hon'ble Apex Court, selections have been made subject to final outcome of the S.L.P., in view of the aforesaid this Court cannot pass any order which goes in conflict with the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The issue of the validity of the Rules is necessarily be decided in the pending S.L.P. only. Thus prayer of the petitioner to struck down the Rules Annex.P-9 cannot be accepted at this 3 stage. The further question regarding rejection of the representation of the petitioner is concerned, perusal of the representation does not show that the petitioner has prayed for relaxation in qualification in view of the discretion lies with the respondents. The prayer made in the representation is to permit petitioner to appear in the selections, hence no relief as otherwise argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was made in the representation. Hence rejection of the representation of the petitioner suffers from no error rather in view of the existence of the Rule pursuant to the interim order of the Hon'ble Apex Court , petitioner could not be permitted to appear in selections being not in a possession of required qualification. In view of the above, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage more so when the selections to the posts are subject to final outcome of the S.L.P. Thus petitioner's case would also be governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court only after decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court or any other order pass which otherwise results in making the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to be effective. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly at this stage. The petitioner is, however, be at liberty to make appropriate representation to 4 seek relaxation in qualification if so advised. If any such representation is made then it should be decided by the respondents within fifteen days from the date its receipt. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta