Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIPAL SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaipal Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana - CWP-5988-1988 [2006] RD-P&H 3680 (4 July 2006)

C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988

Date of Decision : May 19, 2006.

Jaipal Singh and others ..... Petitioners Vs.

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia

* * *

Present : Dr.Balram Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr.Suresh Monga, Senior DAG, Haryana

for the respondent.

* * *

P.S.Patwalia, J. :

Petitioners are diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering and at the time of filing of this writ petition, were working as Well Supervisors in the Haryana Agriculture (Class III) Service. Further promotion to the Class-II Service was regulated by the Punjab Agriculture Service (Class II) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Rules). As per Rule 6(2) of the 1947 Rules, 2/3rd of the posts of Class II Service were to be filled up by promotion and 1/3rd by direct recruitment. Under Rule 5-A(2) (b), the C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988 2

posts to be filled up by promotion were further bifurcated in the ratio of 2:1 between degree holders and diploma holders. The relevant rule is as hereunder :-

"(b) In case of promotion of Sectional

Officer, Well Supervisor, Chief Supervisor (Drilling), Drilling Incharge and Blasting Supervisor - Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with seven years experience in the line. The ratio of 2:1 shall be kept in respect of degree and diploma holders."

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the aforementioned rule as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case set up is that once both degree holders and diploma holders are eligible for promotion then there can be no further quota between the two and fixation of such a quota amounts to denial of equal opportunity to diploma holders. For this argument, reliance had primarily been placed on the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others reported as (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 617.

The respondents had filed a reply contesting the writ petition.

I am of the opinion that the contention as raised by the petitioners in the writ petition to challenge the said rule, can not be accepted. In fact, by a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Murugesan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported as (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 340, it has been held that the rule providing for a quota for promotion between degree holders and diploma holders was a good rule and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The proposition laid down in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was not C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988 3

accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant observations of Murugesan's case (supra) are as under :- "19. The learned counsel for the

respondents relied upon the decision in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, a decision rendered by a Bench comprising A.P.Sen and B.C.Ray, JJ. The category of linemen in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board comprised both diplomaholders and others who may be referred to as non-diplomaholders. They constituted one single category having a common seniority list. By means of the rules issued under the proviso to Article 309, a quota was prescribed for diplomaholders, the result of which was that diplomaholders who were far junior to the non- diplomaholders were promoted ignoring the non- diplomaholders. The rule was held to be bad by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patiala. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Patiala affirmed the judgment.

It was affirmed by the High Court as well. The matter was brought to this Court. This Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that the attention of the Bench was not drawn either to T.N.Khosa or to other decisions. Reference was made only to the observations in Shujat Ali quoted hereinbefore and it was held that the distinction made between the diplomaholders and non-diplomaholders was discriminatory and bad. Apart from the distinction C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988 4

on facts between that case and the case before us, it is evident that non-consideration of T.N.Khosa and other decisions relevant under the subject has led to the laying down of a proposition which seems to run counter to T.N.Khosa. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to accept the broad proposition flowing from the case." The court concluded in the said judgment that a quota between the degree holders and diploma holders had been in existence since long and in the absence of specific averments as to how the same was arbitrary or discriminatory, the same could not be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This view was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta and others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others reported as A.I.R. 2001 S.C.,

308. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be accepted.

At this stage, it is necessary to record that when the matter came up for hearing today, Shri Suresh Monga, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana brought to the notice of this Court that 1947 Rules had since been repealed in 1995 and new rules called the Haryana Agriculture (Group B) Service Rules, 1995 had been enforced regulating the conditions of service in Class-II. In the said rules, there is no further division of the posts between degree holders and diploma holders and thus, the issue raised in the petition had largely been rendered academic. Shri Monga also pointed out that the writ petitioners have also since been promoted to Class II posts by various orders of 10.8.1992, 9.4.1993, 31.10.1994 and C.W.P.No.5988 of 1988 5

18.6.1997. However the promotions were subject to the result of the present writ petition.

For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

May 19, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia )

monika Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.