Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 723 (HP)

S. C. SHARMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2010-04-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner joined Indian Army in Technical Arms (Corps of Engineers) in the rank of Lieutenant on 17.3.1977. He was released from the Army on and with effect from 14.5.1984. He joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the respondent-Department on 18.1.1986. He made representation on 5.2.1986 for fixation of his pay and seniority. His pay and seniority was fixed as per rules. He made another representation on 24.12.1991 vide Annexure A-7 seeking exemption from passing departmental examination (all subjects) on the analogy of one Sh. Virender Kapoor. It appears from the records that representation was rejected in the year 1994 by the Engineer-in-Chief. He preferred original application bearing OA No.784/95 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was decided on 14.11.1996. Respondents were directed to convene review Departmental Promotion Committee. Petitioner had also filed review petition No.39/1996 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was dismissed on 3.3.1997. Review Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of petitioner and he was promoted vide notification dated 23.8.1997 to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 31.12.1992. Representation made by the petitioner on 21.10.1997 was rejected by the Joint Secretary (PW) on 16.1.1998. Case of petitioner, in a nutshell, is that if he had been given exemption at par with Mr. Virender Kapoor, he would have become eligible for consideration to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1989. He also contended that he had already passed the necessary examination called “Young Officer Course” which according to petitioner is at par with departmental examination conducted by the respondent-Department. Case of the respondent-State precisely is that representation made by the petitioner was rightly rejected since he had qualified the departmental examination in the month of May, 1992. 2. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma has vehemently argued that rejection of the representation made by the petitioner by the respondents on 16.1.1998 (Annexure A-2) is arbitrary, illegal and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that his client was entitled to exemption from passing departmental examination on the analogy of Sh. Virender Kapoor, who was granted exemption on 24.5.1978 vide Annexure A-12. 3. Mr. He also contended that his client was entitled to exemption from passing departmental examination on the analogy of Sh. Virender Kapoor, who was granted exemption on 24.5.1978 vide Annexure A-12. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner had already qualified the departmental examination in the year 1992, he could be considered for promotion only from 1992. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings. 5. Representation made by the petitioner seeking analogy with Virender Kapoor for exemption from passing departmental examination stood rejected in the year 1994. Petitioner had made the representation on 24.12.1991. It is only on the basis of the directions issued by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 784/1995 that review Departmental Promotion Committee was held and the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from 31.12.1992. 6. Sh. Virender Kapoor has been exempted from passing the departmental examination on 24.5.1978 vide Annexure A-12. Petitioner has joined the respondent Department as Assistant Engineer on 18.1.1986. He made the first representation seeking parity with Sh. Virender Kapoor’s case on 24.12.1991. It stood, as noticed above, rejected in the year 1994. The fact of the matter is that petitioner had qualified the departmental examination in the year 1992. In these circumstances, his case could only be considered from 1992 for promotion as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The purpose of qualifying the departmental examination is to ensure that only meritorious candidates are promoted to the higher posts. The very purpose of passing of departmental examination will be defeated if the exemption clause is resorted blatantly. In case of Sh. Virender Kapoor, decision has been taken after the concurrence of Departmental Examination Board and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was pleased to grant exemption to him from passing all the papers prescribed for the Officers of Public Works Department for departmental examination since he had passed similar departmental examination during the tenure of his service in the Army. In the present case, this exercise has not been undertaken. The representation made on 21.10.1997 by the petitioner has been rejected on 16.1.1998. It is for the employer to decide whether the exemption from passing departmental examination is to be given or not. In the present case, this exercise has not been undertaken. The representation made on 21.10.1997 by the petitioner has been rejected on 16.1.1998. It is for the employer to decide whether the exemption from passing departmental examination is to be given or not. It is a policy decision to be taken by the State Government and this Court will not interfere in a policy matter. It is not one of those cases where the candidate has not qualified the departmental examination. Petitioner has already passed the departmental examination in the year 1992 and in these circumstances, he is estopped from seeking his promotion from 1989. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.