KAMLESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were ex-servicemen who have been appointed to the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator. THEy claim parity in service conditions with the other incumbents who have appointed pursuant to the requisition Annexure:P-2 by which 47 posts of Driver- cum-Pump Operator were advertised. It is undisputed before me that the names against quota of ex-servicemen were required for filling up the quota in these 47 posts which were governed by the rules known as Promotion Rules for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator Class- III(Non-Gazetted) Non-Ministerial Services, H.P. At the interviews which were held on January, 2007, the name of the petitioners was not sponsored but one Udho Ram ex-serviceman was appointed by virtue of his selection vide Annexure:P-5 dated 16th March, 2007. 16th Immediately thereafter, by letter dated May, 2007, a communication was addressed by the Additional Director General of Police-cum-Director of Fire Services calling upon the Director, Selection Commission-cum-sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex-serviceman Cell, Hamirpur to sponsor the names of other ex-servicemen who were eligible to be appointed as such. This was required to be done within a period of seven days. Pursuant thereto, the names of 21 ex- serviceman were sponsored (including the petitioners) who underwent the selection process. At this interview/selection, all the petitioners were selected and appointments were issued to them. Pursuant to the request made by respondent No.3, the Special Secretary (Home) granted its approval to fill up these posts entirely on contract basis. THE letter reads:

(2.) THIS is the starting point for the grievance of the petitioners. Their case is that since 47 posts were required to be filled in, the petitioners' names have been sponsored by the Selection Commission-cum-sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex-serviceman Cell, Hamirpur, they and the other persons had been appointed pursuant to a common advertisement in accordance with rules noticed above, there can be no discrimination in their service conditions and appointment cannot be altered to one on contract basis. Learned counsel submits that one of the ex-servicemen Sh. Udho Ram has been given a regular pay scale and also tenure of service and there can be no discrimination in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(3.) I cannot persuade myself to hold that the petitioners can be subjected any discrimination more so in view of the fact that 47 posts were advertised and the petitioners as also the other persons appointed against these posts were subjected to a common interview/test. Merely because the code of conduct intervenes in between, that cannot change the conditions of service in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Rathore and others Vs. B.N.Chaturvedi and others (2007) 11 S.C.C 60, to urge that where vacancies arise in a particular department it is the rules which prevail at the time when the vacancies occur that have to be applied. This is the settled proposition of law. Learned counsel also places reliance on decision in Y.V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284, to urge that the vacancies which exist prior to the amendment of the rules are required to be filled up by resort to the un-amended rules. There is no dispute so far as this proposition is concerned.