DARSHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since similar questions of law and facts are involved in the same.

(2.) Briefly stated the grievance of the petitioners who are Class-IV employees in the Animal Husbandry Department is that the State is not following the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and is side tracking the promotional avenue meant for the Class-IV employees of the Animal Husbandry Department. In the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 2002, notified on 23.5.2002, there were 2066 posts 3 of Veterinary Pharmacists and as per the Rules, 75% posts had to be filled in by direct recruitment and the remaining 25% by promotion from amongst Class-IV employees failing which by direct recruitment. The Rules also provided that the Class-IV employees who had passed matriculation with science and had one year regular service or regular service combined with continuous ad-hoc service plus five years service on daily wages would be eligible for promotion.

(3.) It would be pertinent to mention here that the essential educational qualifications for direct recruits were also identical. These Rules were amended in the year 2003 and the minimum educational qualifications were changed from Matriculation to 10+2 or its equivalent with Matriculation with science from a recognized Board or University. Column No. 8 was also amended and the essential qualifications for promotees were made the same as for direct recruits. Only age limits were not applicable in the case of promotees. The quotas were also changed and now 87= posts were 4 to be filled in by direct recruitment and 12=% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.