CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11230 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 10 ,2011 Subhash Mehta .....Petitioner VERSUS The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in ignoring his claim for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and instead promoting person junior to him. Further prayer of the petitioner is not to consider the case of the petitioner under the amended rules. These rules have been amended CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11230 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: on 26.4.2005. The petitioner has prayed for his consideration under unamended rules. The petitioner, who was appointed as Junior Engineer, on regular basis on 6.7.1977, was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in the year 1987. As per HUDA Service Regulations, 1989, an employee is entitled to promotion to the post of Executive Engineer after completing 8 years of service as Sub Divisional Engineer. In addition, one is required to pass the departmental professional examination. The petitioner has passed the professional examination on 1.9.1989 and, thus, became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer after completing 8 years of service as Sub Divisional Engineer. Since some persons had been appointed on deputation, the petitioner could not be promoted, when his turn came. The persons, who were posted as Executive Engineer, on deputation were sent back to their parent departments in March 2005. The petitioner claims that he was already eligible to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer but his claim was not considered. In the meantime, the respondents have amended the regulations on 26.4.2005 and degree in Bachelor in Science Engineer (Civil) or equivalent has been now prescribed as the eligibility qualification, besides completion of 8 years of service. The petitioner claims that the posts were already available and the claim of the petitioner ought to be considered under the unamended Regulations 1989. Reference is made to the seniority list, showing the petitioner at Sr.No.8 and that of Surinder Pal, Ashok Kumar and V.K.Kalra at Sr.Nos.9, 13 and 15 of the seniority list. When the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11230 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: petitioner learnt that these persons, junior to him, were being considered for promotion under the amended rules, he moved a representation but still his claim was ignored. The petitioner would aver that if the vacancies existed prior to the amendment of the regulation, then those vacancies would have to be filled by following the unamended regulations and amended regulation would apply only to the vacancies, those would arise after the amendment. In support, the petitioner has placed reliance on some judgements in this regard. Respondents, including private respondents, filed separate replies. It is stated that the service regulation governing the promotion has been amended on 26.4.2005 and Degree of Bachelor of Science Engineering (Civil) or equivalent is now prescribed as the qualification for the post of Executive Engineer. Only those candidates who fulfill this qualification have been considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner is stated to be only a diploma holder. It is also pointed out that the 7 Sub Divisional Engineers, who have been promoted to the posts of Executive Engineers, were senior to the petitioner as per the seniority list appended with the writ petition. It is pointed out that in the seniority list prior to notification dated 26.4.2005, the petitioner was at Sr.No.38, copy of which has been annexed. In the seniority list issued on 14.1.1999, the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.17. Copy of the same is also annexed. The claim of the petitioner that he was at seniority list No.8, thus, is contested. It is also stated in the reply that no promotions have been effected prior to the amendment of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11230 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: regulation in the year 2005, as no regular vacancy of Executive Engineer was available with the respondents. The prayer accordingly is to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The official respondents would further point out that mere completion of 8 years of service would not entitle the petitioner to promotion. As per the reply, the petitioner is ignoring the seniority list issued on 21.10.1994, where he was shown at Sr.No.38 and seniority list dated 14.1.1999, where he was shown at Sr.No.17. The petitioner never assailed these seniority lists. The petitioner was at Seniority List No.10, even after amendment of the regulations as he was in the joint Cadre of Civil and Electrical. Nine persons were senior to the petitioner in the seniority list on the date of amendment of rules and when the cadres were bifurcated into two branches i.e. Electrical and Civil Branches. Two persons senior to the petitioner were allocated to Electrical Branch and thereafter his seniority in the Civil Branch Cadre was reflected at Sr.No.8, which the petitioner has annexed. Thus, the whole case set-up by the petitioner is faulted on this ground and it is alleged that the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead and misinform this Court of the true factual position. In view of the above factual position, no case is made out to consider the claim of the petitioner for his promotion under the unamended rules. Clear stand in the reply is that no post was available for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer while the unamended rules were in operation. The petitioner was not eligible for promotion even as per his seniority. The counsel for the petitioner, despite specific query, could neither indicate anything from the record CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11230 OF 2006 :{ 5 }: or otherwise that there was any post available prior to amendment of the rules, against which the claim of the petitioner could be considered for promotion as Executive Engineer. The case of the eligible persons has been considered for promotion after the amendment of the rules. The petitioner is not eligible for consideration of promotion as he is not possessing the degree in Bachelor in Science Engineer (Civil). The petitioner is only a diploma holder. Even in terms of the seniority, the petitioner is junior to those who have been considered and promoted. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is without any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 10,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE