ANIL PURI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Clerk in the Respondent -Department in the year 1987. He joined his duties on 5.2.1987. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1995 and was placed in the pay scale of the Junior Assistant with effect from 1.1.1996. He ranked at Sr. No. 128 in the joint seniority list. He is aggrieved by the amendment carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer whereby words "the Clerks having five years regular service to be promoted as Tehsil Welfare Officers" were substituted by the words "by promotion from amongst the Senior Assistants having six years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc rendered upto 31.3.1998 service in the grade". According to the Petitioner, though the vacancies were available, however, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer. He had exercised his option on 11.2.1997 and in the year 1999.

(2.) MR . Naresh Kaul has strenuously argued that his client was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer with effect from October, 1997 on the basis of option exercised by him for the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer on 11.2.1997 and in the year 1999. He then contended that the old vacancies were to be filled up according to the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules and new vacancies were to be filled up according to the new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which came into force with effect from 4.7.2002.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.