Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 475 (PNJ)

Joga Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-20

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ALOK SINGH

body2010
Judgment Adarsh Kumar, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants seeking quashing of rules on the ground that the same denied equal opportunity for carrier advancement to the appellants. 2. Case of the appellants is that they joined as Project Manager with the industries Department of Punjab and were governed by Punjab Industries Non technical (Group A) Service Rules, 2005. The rules provide promotion to higher posts i. e. Deputy Director and General Manager from the cadre of Assistant director, Assistant Director (Data), Assistant Collector of Stores, Store inspection Officers, Research Officer and Functional Managers who are members of the Punjab Industries Service (Class II) and who have an experience of working as such on either of these posts for a minimum period of eight years to the extent of 65%. Remaining 35% quota is to be filled up by promotion from the project Managers. 3. Grievance of the appellants was that different cadres mentioned above could not be clubbed together for purposes of further promotion. As a result of the said clubbing, since 1992 no person holding the post of Project Manager was able to get further promotion, while persons appointed to other cadres clubbed as above, got opportunities for promotion. 4. Case of the appellants was contested by the State by submitting that the rules were framed as a part of the scheme under which District Industries centres were set up throughout India. Earlier project managers and functional managers were governed by different set of rules but now project managers were also given opportunity for promotion to same posts to the extent of 35%. It was denied that no project manager had been given promotion. Particulars of persons given promotion have been mentioned. Ratio of promotion was fixed having regard to respective cadre strength The rules provide equal opportunity to Project managers, depending upon availability of posts. 5. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellants by holding that proportionate quota for promotion had been provided and no interference was called for. It was observed:- "for answering the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution it has to be shown that those who are given the benefits are arbitrarily picked by keeping the members of the other cadres out of the beneficiary class. It was observed:- "for answering the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution it has to be shown that those who are given the benefits are arbitrarily picked by keeping the members of the other cadres out of the beneficiary class. There is no such feature in the rule which may be termed as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. I am not persuaded to take the view that posts in the cadre of Assistant Directors, assistant Director (Data), Assistant Controller of Stores, Store Inspection officer, Research Officers/project Managers having not been filled up by independent incumbents and therefore, the rule prescribing quota is unconstitutional. It does not mean that for all times to come the cadre is going to be blank although this fact has been denied in the written statement. For that reason alone, it cannot be concluded that the rule suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or ultravires Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the constitution. In any case, the petitioners have been allocated adequate quota to give them representation in the promotion cadre of Deputy Directors of industries or General Manager, District Industries Centre or Deputy Director (Data ). They cannot make a grievance that more quota be allocated to them or they would also be entitled to work and absorb on the post of Assistant director/assistant Director (Data), Assistant Controller of Stores, Store inspection Officer, Research Officer. " 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that rules can provide classification for purposes of promotion. Right to be considered for promotion is different from chance of promotion. Equality can be claimed with members of same class. Historically, project managers have been a different class. Having regard to back ground of the cadre and its strength, proportion for promotional chances has been fixed by rules. The rules which are applicable equally to all persons in the same cadre cannot be held to be illegal. Mathematical equality may not be possible in such matters. On material before this Court, plea of discrimination has not been substantiated. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.