IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2672 of 2008 Date of Decision 2nd June ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Satya Pal & others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Ms. Jyotsana Rewal Dua, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. For Respondent Nos. 7,8,10 and 12: Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.4,6,&9: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that they be considered for the post of Child Development Project Officers (for short “CDPO”) in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post known as Child Development Project Officer (Class-II, Gazetted) in the Social and Women’s Welfare Department, 1996. These Rules were 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 promulgated on 10th July, 1996 and were later on amended on 4th June, 2007. 2. However, for the purposes of the present petitioner the unamended Rules are being taken up for consideration. It is undisputed that according to the Rules, against 80% of the posts of CDPO to be filled in by promotion, 40% is from amongst the Assistant Child Development Project Officers having at least five years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc rendered upto 31.3.1991 service, if any, in the grade and 40% are reserved for Tehsil Welfare Officers having at least 8 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service if any in the grade. 3. It is also undisputed and settled principle of law that the vacancies, existing prior to the amendment of the Rules, are to be filled up according to the unamended Rules. The petition was taken up on a number of days for hearing, but the confusion with respect to availablity of vacancies remained obscure. It is the vacancy position of 3.6.2007 i.e. the date prior to the amendment which has to be considered. It is also undisputed that as on that date, there were 21 posts occupied by the Tehsil Welfare Officers and there was short fall of nine vacancies. This is evident from the reading of Chart as prepared by the State placed on the record which is as under: “Total vacancies of CDPOs w.e.f. 1996 to July, 2005 when DPC for regular promotion to the post of CDPO from the categories of TWOs & ACDPOs was convened in HPPSC=59 1. 10 posts were filled by direct recruitment in 1998. 2. The proposal to fill up 49 posts of CDPOs (24 TWOs+25ACDPOs by promotion from TWOs/ACDPOs was sent to Commission as per the prevalent rules applicable in 2005. 3 3. The commission recommended 46 candidates (24 TWOs + 22 ACDPOs) against 49 vacancies and three candidates from ACDPO category were not recommended due to their ineligibility. Vacancies left due to: 4. Out of 46 candidates recommended by Commission, 43 joined and three TWOs forgone the promotion. 5. After regular promotion on the post of CDPO in July, 2005, in addition to above unfilled six vacancies, 11 more vacancies of CDPO occurred w.e.f. August, 2005 to 3.06.2007. 6. Thus there were total 17 (6+11) vacancies of CDPOs as on 03.06.2007. Break-up/brief details is as under:- Category Quota Prescribed In the R&P Rules prior to 4.6.07. Share of posts in total cadre of 75 posts of CDPOs Posts occupied as on 03.06.2007 17 vacancies shared in between the feeder categories Excess/shortfall as on 03.06.2007 Remarks Direct recruitment 20% 15 posts 19 Posts (+4 occupied in excess) 4 vacancies + 8 (4 posts +4 vacancies) 4 vacancies vacant Tehsil Welfare Officer 40% 30 posts 21 posts 6 vacancies -3 vacancies Filled 6 vacancies in 2008 Assistant Child Development Project Officer 40% 30 posts 18 posts 7 vacancies -6 vacancies Filled one vacancies in 2008 The shortfall of three posts of TWOs against their total cadre of 30 posts can be met out from the posts occupied in excess by the direct recuitees as is clear from above charge.” What emerges is that the Tehsil Welfare Officers, on that date, were entitled to 30 posts out of which 21 were filled in leaving nine vacancies. Out of these vacant posts six were filled in 2008 leaving three vacancies unfilled to which the unamended Rules applied. 4. In view of this matter, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that three posts, which fall to the share of Tehsil Welfare Officers on 3.6.2007, shall be filled up by Tehsil 4 Welfare Officers in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prior to the amendment and the petitioners be considered for promotion and promoted if found fit. It is expected that the State shall undertake this exercise and complete the same within a period of three months from today. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. June 2nd , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5