JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.Petitioner was selected as Conductor in respondent- corporation on 19.9.1990. He completed his training. He joined his duties on 1.1 1.199 1. He was transferred from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office, Shimla on 15.11.1991. He was directed to take charge of the entire case files from Sh. Khema Nand, Junior Assistant on 23.11.1991. He was deputed to look after the court cases before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 11.5.1992. He was confirmed as Conductor on 20.2.1995. The DGM (P&A) sent a proposal to the Secretary (Finance) to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk instead of Conductor, vide Annexure P-7 on 10.9.1997. Petitioner also made representations for change of his designation from the post of Conductor to Clerk on 29.10.1997 and 31.8.2000. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected without a speaking order on 23.9.2000. He again made representations on 2.9.2005 and 10.10.2007. 2.Mr. Tarlok Chauhan has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been working/discharging the duties of a Clerk since his transfer from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office, Shimla with effect from 15.11.1991 uninterruptedly and his designation is required to be changed to the post of Clerk from the post of Conductor. He also cited example of one Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi, whose designations were changed by the respondent-corporation. 3.Mr. Adarsh Sharma has vehemently argued that there is no provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to change the designation from the post of Conductor to Clerk. He has justified the change of designations of Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi. He has also argued that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion in his own stream, but his case could not be considered as he was not having five years running experience of Conductor. He was never deputed as Conductor in the bus. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5.Petitioner though appointed as Conductor on 8.10.1990 has been transferred from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office Shimla on 15.11.1991. He started discharging the duties of Clerk by taking charge of the entire case files from Khema Nand, Junior Assistant and thereafter started looking after the court cases before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with effect from 11.5.1992. 5.Petitioner though appointed as Conductor on 8.10.1990 has been transferred from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office Shimla on 15.11.1991. He started discharging the duties of Clerk by taking charge of the entire case files from Khema Nand, Junior Assistant and thereafter started looking after the court cases before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with effect from 11.5.1992. It is evident from Annexure P-7 that the DGM (P&A) has recommended the case of the petitioner to the Secretary (Finance) on 10.9.1997. The DGM (P&A) while recommending the case of the petitioner to the State has specifically stated that the petitioner has acquired experience of legal matters. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Secretary (Finance) without speaking order, vide Annexure P- 10 dated 23.9.2000. The representation made by the petitioner on 31.8.2000 was required to be dealt with in a just and fair manner. The competent authority was required to pass a speaking/detailed order taking into consideration all the points raised by the petitioner in his representation. Petitioner was deputed to assist the Senior Legal Advisor/Legal Advisor in the High Court after the abolition of Tribunal, vide order 29.8.2008. 7.One Sh. Vijay Kumar was engaged as Cook-cum Caretaker in the respondent-corporation in the year 1989. He was regularized as Conductor in the pay scale of ‘ 3 120-5160. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Service Committee of the respondent-corporation for creation of post of Cook-cum-Caretaker and on approval of the Service Committee the Board of Directors in its 99th meeting held on 5.2.2005, vide item No.99.0 1 has approved the proceedings of the Service Committee for creation of one post of Cook-cum­Caretaker in the pay scale of ‘ 2620-4 140. The pay scale of the post of Cook-cum-Caretaker was ‘ 2620-4 140. However, the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation has changed the designation of the petitioner from Conductor to Cook-cum-Caretaker and placed in the higher pay scale of ‘ 3120-5160 in its meeting held on 9.9.2008. Respondent- corporation appointed one Satya Devi as Conductor. She had also made a request for changing her designation to the post of Clerk. Her case was rejected by the Board of Directors in its 85th and 86th meetings, but in its 87th meeting, the Board of Directors has changed the designation of Satya Devi from the post of Conductor to Clerk on 7.12.1999. She had also made a request for changing her designation to the post of Clerk. Her case was rejected by the Board of Directors in its 85th and 86th meetings, but in its 87th meeting, the Board of Directors has changed the designation of Satya Devi from the post of Conductor to Clerk on 7.12.1999. According to Annexure P-1 6, case of the petitioner was also required to be placed before the Board of Directors of the respondent- corporation for change of designation from Conductor to Clerk on Court duty. It is evident from the language employed in Annexure P-1 6 that the petitioner was posted in Head Office with effect from 22.1 1.1991 to attend the court cases. He had been attending the court cases honestly and satisfactorily. According to the memorandum, one responsible official is required to pursue the court cases smoothly and regularly and the petitioner has been handling the cases for the last more than 15 years. He was found most suitable for the assigned job. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was existing in the cadre strength of Conductors and in order to exclude his name from the cadre strength of Conductors; his designation was required to be changed from Conductor to Clerk. It was specifically mentioned in the memorandum that the pay scales of Conductor and Clerk are identical and by changing the designation of the petitioner, no financial implication is involved. It was also stated that in the event of change of designation as Clerk, name of the petitioner will be placed below the junior most Clerk in the seniority list of Clerks and he will not claim his seniority above any of the existing Clerk. However, the fact of the matter is that though the matter was taken up by the Board of Directors, but the matter was dropped in its 107th meeting of the Board of Directors as item No. 106.07. 8.Petitioner has also sought information under Right to Information Act to the effect that in how many cases, change of designation has been approved by the respondent corporation. The information was supplied to the petitioner, vide Annexure P-23 on 26.8.2009, according to which, as per record, 435 employees have been permitted to change their designation since 1974. 8.Petitioner has also sought information under Right to Information Act to the effect that in how many cases, change of designation has been approved by the respondent corporation. The information was supplied to the petitioner, vide Annexure P-23 on 26.8.2009, according to which, as per record, 435 employees have been permitted to change their designation since 1974. It is, thus, evident that the respondent-corporation had been changing the designation of the incumbents in public interest and administrative exigencies. In the case of Vijay Kumar, he was though appointed Cook-cum-Caretaker but was regularized as Conductor. The Board of Directors has approved the change of designation from the post of Conductor to Cook-cum­Caretaker. The pay scale of the Cook-cum-Caretaker was ‘ 2620-4140, but the respondent-corporation in its own wisdom has retained the pay scale granted to the petitioner of the post of Conductor, i.e. ‘ 3120-5160 while changing the designation of Vijay Kumar from the post of Conductor to Cook-cum­Caretaker. Similarly, as noticed above, at the request of Satya Devi, respondent-corporation has changed her designation from the post of Conductor to Clerk. The respondent- corporation, besides, these two cases has permitted the change of designation of 435 employees. It is evident from the memorandum prepared and the recommendations made by the DGM (P&A) that the petitioner had in fact been discharging the duties of Court Clerk since 15.11.1991 uninterruptedly, that too, satisfactorily. In these circumstances, case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for the change of designation from the post of Conductor to Clerk. 9. Now, the petitioner cannot be considered for the post of Inspector since he does not have five years running experience as a Conductor as he has been uninterruptedly working as Clerk since 15.11.1991. Respondent-corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India should have taken reasonable and rationale decision to change the designation of the petitioner from the post of Conductor to Clerk. The respondent- Corporation had been permitting the change of designation taking into consideration the administrative exigencies and the same exercise ought to have been undertaken in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner had been continuously working for about two decades as Clerk but his designation has not been changed from the post of Conductor to Clerk. The respondent- Corporation had been permitting the change of designation taking into consideration the administrative exigencies and the same exercise ought to have been undertaken in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner had been continuously working for about two decades as Clerk but his designation has not been changed from the post of Conductor to Clerk. The persons, who are appointed after the petitioner as Clerk, have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant as per material placed on record. Petitioner has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner by the respondent by treating him at par with Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi and 435 employees, in whose cases, the designation has been permitted to be changed since 1974. In the agenda item, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner’s case could be considered for change of designation from the post of Conductor by placing him at the bottom of seniority list. Petitioner has joined as Conductor on 1.11.1991 after completing his training. Respondent itself has transferred the petitioner from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office and started extracting the work of Clerk till date uninterruptedly. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected without a speaking order. There are no cogent and convincing material why the matter placed before the Board of Directors has been dropped. The petitioner has been discriminated vis- à-vis Vijay Kumar and Satya Devi and 435 other employees, in whose cases, their designations have been changed. Case of the petitioner was genuine and the respondent-corporation cannot take advantage of its own wrong by transferring the petitioner from H.R.T.C. Local Unit to Head Office, Shimla and then to deny the change of designation from the post of Conductor to Clerk. 10. In service jurisprudence, the cadre has its own significance since the persons appointed in a particular cadre gain experience in the same stream and are promoted in their own stream. However, in the instant case, the petitioner though included in the cadre of Conductors, has been discharging the duties of Clerk since 15.11.1991. The scope of judicial review in these matters is though limited but in the case in hand, the action of the respondents of not permitting the change of designation of the petitioner from Conductor is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review in these matters is though limited but in the case in hand, the action of the respondents of not permitting the change of designation of the petitioner from Conductor is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner by extracting work of Clerk with effect from 15.11.1991 but by not changing his designation. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed as Clerk with effect from 15.11.1991 with all the consequential benefits. Necessary orders to this effect be issued by the respondent within a period of four weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.