SUBASH CHAND, RESTORER, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.3.1998. The appellant -writ petitioner joined service as a Restorer on 7.3.1988 whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 joined as such on 25.8.1988 and 19.8.1989 respectively. It is the admitted position that in the seniority list, Annexure P -1, the appellant has been shown at Sr. No. 88 whereas the private respondents have been shown at Sr. Nos. 91 and 116. As per Rule 19 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), a provision has been made for promotion of Restorers to the post of Clerks with 10% of the posts of Clerks kept reserved for this purpose. Amongst other criteria, the restorers were required to pass a type writing test in English at a speed of 30 w.p.m. The type writing test was held by the High Court on 6.11.1993 and in all fifteen candidates appeared, out of which, 8 candidates including the appellant qualified the test. The High Court accordingly promoted the first four candidates to the post of Clerks as per their merit on the basis of their seniority against the available vacancies of November -December, 1993. The appellant thereupon made a representation dated 6.11.1993 that as he had passed the type writing test, his case for promotion to the post of Clerk should also be considered. It appears that since two posts of Clerks had in the meanwhile become available to be filled in from amongst Restorers another type writing test was held on 29.4.1995. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 qualified the test on which the High Court vide order dated 19.5.1995, Annexure P -3, promoted the said respondents as Clerks. The order, Annexure P -3, was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. The appellant pleaded before the learned Single Judge that he ought to have been promoted in preference to respondents 2 and 3 and he had qualified the type wring test on 6.11.1993 whereas the respondents 2 and 3 had qualified the same on 29.4.1995.

(2.) The High Court in its written statement took the plea that as per Rule 19.4, promotion was to be made from amongst Supervisors/Restorers provided they qualified the type writing test as stipulated in Sub -rule (ii) of Rule 19.4. It was further pleaded that it had been an unbroken practice in the High Court to invite applications for promotion to the posts of Clerks and all promotions which were to be made during a calender year, were made out of candidates, who possessed the educational qualifications, experience and had passed the type writing test, and that the list of selected candidates lapsed at the end of each calender year in which the applications had been invited. It was further pleaded that the circular letter, Annexure R -1 dated 23.2.1995 had been issued by the office calling upon the eligible restorers to submit their applications and to take the type writing test in English, and that the appellant had made no response to Annexure R -l whereas respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had taken the test and after having qualified therein had been promoted as Clerks.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge it was argued that as the type writing test had been cleared by the appellant on 6.11.1993, there was no necessity for him to pass the test a second time. This plea was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 24.3.1998 holding that the list of eligible candidates lapsed every year and as such, each set of promotions being a separate one, a candidate was required to clear the type test each time he sought promotion. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed leading to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.