VIJAY KUMAR Vs. HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer in the quota fixed for degree holders/A.M.I.Es and for grant of any other relief's.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by the respondent-Board on 22.11.1983. The petitioner, accordingly, joined the services on 1.12.1983. He passed the examination of A.M.I.E. Degree in Civil Engineering in June, 1989. The next promotion from the post of Junior Engineer is to the post of Assistant Engineer. The promotion is governed by the Rules known as Punjab Service of Engineers, Class-II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 6 of the Rules deals with recruitment to service, which provides the manner and the source of the proportion of filling up the vacancies. The promotion/recruitment to the service is made either by way of direct appointment or by way of promotion from members of the Haryana PWD (B&R) Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service. The allocation of each source in the lot of 40 vacancies is given in this Rule. The qualifications are prescribed under Rule 7 and appointment by way of promotion is required by Rule 9 of the Rules. It is so averred in the petition that for the purpose of appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, out of a lot of 40 posts, the A.M.I.Es./Degree Holders are allotted 4 posts/vacancies and the Diploma Holders are allotted 8 posts.

(3.) The respondent-Board has been making appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by strictly following the roster and quota as provided in Rule 6 as noted above. The grievance is mat this exercise continued upto limited extent i.e. upto 40 vacancies and thereafter, the respondent-Board has never followed the roster nor has done the promotion as per quota fixed in Rule 6. The petitioner would aver that respondent-Board has been adopting the policy of pick and choose and in support has made reference to list of officers (Annexure P-l) so appointed to the posts of Assistant Engineers either by direct recruitment or by way of promotion. A perusal of the list shows that the diploma holders are allotted 8 posts/vacancies, but they are holding more posts than their quota, whereas degree holders/A.M.I.Es. to which the petitioner belongs, have been allocated 4 posts, but they are tailing short of their quota because of the policy of pick and choose adopted by the Board. Not only that the respondent-Board had recommended the names of three persons for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers, who were diploma holders, at the time of filing of this writ petition, but the claim of degree holders like the petitioner was ignored. Relying upon Annexure P-l, counsel for the petitioner contends that the Board has promoted 6 officers from the category of diploma holders whereas one person has been promoted from the category of degree holders. Thus, there are three vacancies, which are fallen to the share of degree holders, but all these posts have been given to diploma holders. At that time, degree holders were not available, which was not the situation at the time of filing of the writ petition. The persons like the petitioner were available for the promotions and there were vacancies. The petitioner made representation on 4.11.1993'and when no reply was received, he has filed this writ petition.