Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 165 (HP)

V. K. LAKHANPAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-03-17

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral).:-The petitioners have assailed adding the category of Senior Editors in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Public Relations) by way of amendment carried out vide notification dated 23.2.1987. 2. Mr. D.P. Gupta has strenuously argued that as per Annexure A-1, only Deputy Directors with three years regular service in the grade or 5 years regular service of Assistant Directors were in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Public Relations). His further contention is that the Senior Editors have no administrative experience of public relations and they could not be added as feeder category for promotion to the post of Joint Director. According to him, the Senior Editors are trained and specialized only in the sphere of editing and publishing and they lack experience in public relations. 3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that it is the prerogative of the employer to frame and amend the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. He then contended that the scope of judicial review in such like matters is very restricted. 4. I have heard Mr. D.P. Gupta and Mr. R.K. Sharma and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is true that as per Rules notified vide Annexure A-1 on 17.8.1977, the petitioners were in feeder category for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Public Relations). It is only by way of amendment carried out on 23.2.1987 that Senior Editors have also been brought in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Public Relations). What category is to be included in the feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post or deleted is a policy decision. The Courts only intervene in these matters if the Recruitment & Promotion Rules and amendments subsequently brought in are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioners’ right to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Public Relations) has been kept intact. The petitioners have no locus standi to assail the amendment only on the ground that their chances of promotion have been reduced. The petitioners could not bring their case within the ambit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.