Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3061 (PNJ)

Kirpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-08-01

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the validity of the Punjab Soil and Water Conservation and Waste Land Development Class-III (non-ministerial) Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Rules ). The point of attack at the hands of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the posts of Draftsman, Head Draftsman and Circle Head Draftsman are only to be filled up from those who possess the qualification of certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute. It is, however, the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that a large number of Junior Draftsmen, are being promoted to the posts of Draftsman, Head Draftsman, and Circle Head Draftsman, despite the fact that they do not have the aforesaid qualification. 2. We have considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The statutory rules under reference have been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P6. The post of Junior Draftsman has been mentioned at Sr. No.13 in the Appendix attached to the 2001 Rules. It is stipulated therein, that post of Junior Draftsman, is to be filled up by way of direct recruitment alone, wherein one of the prescribed educational qualifications is, two years certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute. In view of the prescription of the aforesaid qualification, it is apparent, that the Junior Draftsman who are considered for onward promotion first as Draftsman, and thereafter as Head Draftsman and Circle Head Draftsman, can only be such persons, who possess the qualification of two years certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute. 3. In order to explain the position to us, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the post of Junior Draftsman was earlier designated as Tracer and the qualification of Certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute was not stipulated as a condition precedent for appointment to the post of Tracer. 3. In order to explain the position to us, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the post of Junior Draftsman was earlier designated as Tracer and the qualification of Certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute was not stipulated as a condition precedent for appointment to the post of Tracer. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that when persons earlier inducted in the service of respondents as Tracer, who have now been designated as Junior Draftsmen acquire 12 years experience of working as Junior Draftsman, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman, as per the conditions stipulated in the Appendix to the 2001 Rules, even though they do not possess the qualification of two years Certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute. We do not find the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner attractive, on account of the fact, that a Tracer as per the qualification stipulated before the enforcement of 2001 Rules, having a certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute was eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman, on acquiring two years experience as such, whereas under the 2001 Rules, a Junior Draftsman becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman only after acquiring an experience of 12 years. Reference in this behalf may be made to the Punjab Department of Public Works (Public Health Branch) Draftsmen and Tracers (Class-III) Service Rules, 1988, which have been extracted in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. 4. It is, therefore evident, that an additional 10 years experience for a person discharging the duties of Junior Draftsman has been now prescribed as a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Draftsman. This experience, in our view, would be sufficient to render him efficient enough to discharge all the duties to the post of Draftsman. We find nothing arbitrary in the action of the respondents in formulating the 2001 Rules for promotion (from the post of Junior Draftsman to the post of Draftsman, after the re-designation of the post of Tracer), wherein a Junior Draftsman/ Tracer is required to have 12 years experience before he can be considered for promotion to the post of Draftsman. Likewise, for promotion from the post of Draftsman to the post of Head Draftsman, further 5 years experience has been prescribed. Likewise, for promotion from the post of Draftsman to the post of Head Draftsman, further 5 years experience has been prescribed. Still further, for promotion from the post of Head Draftsman to the post of Circle Head Draftsman, an additional experience of 5 years has been stipulated. 5. It would be unfair on our part, not to incorporate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, that there should be separate quotas prescribed in the statutory rules for promotion, one for those who possess the prescribed educational qualification of Certificate of Draftsman (Civil) from an Industrial Training Institute, and the other for those who do not possess the same. It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The prerogative to lay down the rules for promotion, and to prescribe qualifications for eligibility and quotas, if any, is that of the rule framing authority, which knows best the requirements of a particular post, and thus, is in the most effective position to deal with the issue at its own level. It would also be pertinent to mention that reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Ashutosh Gupta V/s. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , wherefrom learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the following observations: In this view of the matter, if the statutory provision provides for a recruitment of a candidate without bearing in mind the maintenance of efficiency of administration such a provision cannot be sustained, being against the constitutional mandate. But we are unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Jain that those persons who got recruited to Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Emergency Recruitment Rules are either inefficient or their suitability has been adjudged on an inferior standard. It may be reiterated that those persons also had undertaken a written test on specified subjects as indicated in the Rules and after qualifying in the written test they were also subjected to interview conducted by the Public Service Commission, in the same manner, as those who had been recruited to Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Recruitment Rules of 1954 though there may have been a variance on the subjects of which they had taken the test. But that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the candidates recruited under the Emergency Recruitment Rules are less efficient or their suitability had been adjudged at a lesser standard. We would, therefore, reject the submissions made by Mr. Jain on the ground of discrimination, on the score. 6. It is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the rule framing authority did not keep in mind the maintenance of efficiency of the administration specially the job requirement of the provisional posts while framing the rules under reference. Nor has the petitioner placed on the record of this case any pleadings on the basis of which he could substantiate the instant contention. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept that the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ashutosh Guptas case, is applicable to the controversy in hand. 7. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.