SUCHINDER KUMAR BALH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as temporary Tracers in the Punjab Public Works (Buildings and Roads Branch) before November 1, 1956, the date on which the merger of the States of Punjab and Pepsu took place. They were promoted to the post of Assistant Draftsman in 1956 after they had passed the examination prescribed in the proviso to clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Punjab Public Works Buildings and Roads Branch-Draftsmen and Tracers Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1943 (hereinafter called the 1943 Rules). They continued to work as Assistant Draftsmen thereafter and on November 1, 1966, when the re-organization of the erstwhile State of Punjab took place, they were allocated to the State of Haryana as Assistant Draftsman. In the meantime, the Punjab Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) Draftsmen and Tracers Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the 1943 Rules), had come into force with effect from March 26, 1965, on which date they were published in the Punjab Government Gazette. Petitioner 1 was appointed as officiating Head Draftsman Class II in the pay scale of Rs. 200-10-230/10-300 in Dadri Construction Division of Hissar Circle, by order dated February 28, 1967, while petitioner 2 was appointed officiating Divisional Head Draftsman Class II, office of the Chief Engineer, Haryana, P.W.D. B. & R. Branch, by office order dated April 18, 1967. On February, 1969, an order was passed reverting the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Draftsman in the interest of public service. The petitioners have challenged this order in this petition. The petition was admitted on February 18, 1969, and status quo was directed to remain till the decision of the writ petition.

(2.) The written statement has been filed by respondent 2 and another written statement has been filed by respondents 3 to 9. Supplementary affidavits were also filed by the petitioners and respondent 2 with the permission of the Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that since they had been appointed a temporary Tracers before November 1, 1956, they were governed by the 1943 Rules in regard to the conditions of their service and since under these rules they could be promoted as Assistant Draftsman and Head Draftsman, they could not be debarred from promotion to the rank of Head Draftsman by the 1965 Rules which had been promulgated by the Punjab Government under Section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. It is submitted that the channel of promotion prescribed in the 1943 Rules was a condition of service of the petitioners which could not be varied to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government. According to them, they have been reverted from the posts of officiating Head Draftsmen of that of Assistant Draftsman because, as provided in Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, they did not possess the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in Rule 7(i) of the said Rules. This rule, however, could not be applied to them because in the 1943 Rules, no such minimum qualifications had been prescribed. In the 1943 Rules, an examination had been prescribed for the recruitment of Assistant Draftsman from amongst temporary Draftsmen and Tracers employed in the Department and that examination they had successfully passed in 1946. In fact, as a result of the passing of that examination, they were appointed as Assistant Draftsman which posts they continued to hold in the composite State of Punjab as well as in the State of Haryana till they were promoted to the posts of officiating Head Draftsmen. According to Rule 6 of the 1943 Rules, they were eligible for promotion as Head Draftsmen Class II and thereafter as Head Draftsmen Class I. This channel of promotion has now been blocked for them for ever unless they equip themselves with the minimum qualifications prescribed in Rule 7(i) of the 1965 Rules, which is almost impossible for them to acquire now.