SUBHASH MEHTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 on 26.4.2005. The petitioner has prayed for his consideration under unamended rules.

(2.) 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 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 judgments in this regard.

(3.) 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 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.