IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11342/2008 Reserved on: 11.4.2011 Decided on:21.4. 2011 _____________________________________________ Anil Puri. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent- Department in the year 1987. He joined his duties on 5.2.1987. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1995 and was placed in the pay scale of the Junior Assistant with effect from 1.1.1996. He ranked at Sr. No. 128 in the joint seniority list. He is aggrieved by the amendment carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer whereby words 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 “the Clerks having five years regular service to be promoted as Tehsil Welfare Officers” were substituted by the words “by promotion from amongst the Senior Assistants having six years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc rendered upto 31.3.1998 service in the grade”. According to the petitioner, though the vacancies were available, however, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. He had exercised his option on 11.2.1997 and in the year 1999. 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul has strenuously argued that his client was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer with effect from October, 1997 on the basis of option exercised by him for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer on 11.2.1997 and in the year 1999. He then contended that the old vacancies were to be filled up according to the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules and new vacancies were to be filled up according to the new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which came into force with effect from 4.7.2002. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that case of the petitioner could not be considered being junior most. 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. According to the contents of the reply, promotional channel initially from the post of Clerk was to the post of Senior Assistant and Tehsil Welfare Officer. The promotional quota to the post of Senior Assistant was 100% and 25% to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. The old Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer were repealed on 4.7.2002 in which the quota of Clerks/Junior Assistants was abolished and 25% quota has been allotted to the Senior Assistants for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. The pay scale of the Tehsil Welfare Officer was revised to ` 6400-10640. The pay scale of Senior Assistant was ` 5800-9200. In view of this, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were amended. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had exercised his option to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. The Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer was held on 31.7.1997 for three vacant posts. Petitioner could not be considered being junior most. The Departmental Promotion Committee was again convened on 18.10.1997 for three vacant posts of Tehsil Welfare officer. The fact of the matter is that 4 petitioner could not be considered again being junior most. The Clerks/Junior Assistants, who had opted for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer, as per the contents of the reply and were promoted to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer, were senior to the petitioner. The respondent-department sought option to fill up the post of Senior Assistant on 23.5.1999. Petitioner again exercised his option for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. Thus, he could not be considered for the post of Senior Assistant in the year 1999 since the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer was not available. As far as case of Sh. Anil Kumar is concerned, he had filed O.A. No. 1146/2004, which was disposed of by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 27.8.2004. He was senior most, who opted for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer in the year 1997. His case could not be considered due to adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report. The adverse remarks were expunged. Subsequently, review Departmental Committee was convened and Sh. Ail Kumar was promoted vide Annexure A-1 on 9.8.2004. 6. What emerges from the observations and discussions made hereinabove is that the posts of Tehsil Welfare Officers were available and the incumbents were 5 considered according to the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Since the petitioner was ranking far below in the seniority list, he could not be promoted though he had exercised his option in the years 1997 and 1999. Now, as far as the new Recruitment and Promotion Rules promulgated on 4.7.2002 are concerned, petitioner is not eligible for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. However, his case is required to be considered in accordance with law for the post of Senior Assistant, as undertaken by the respondent-State in the reply. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, after the production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 21.4. 2011 *awasthi*