Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 430 (HP)

RAKESH THAKUR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-16

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. BY means of this writ petition, the following relief has been sought:- i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, being eligible, for promotion to the post of Research Officer in accordance with the existing R&P Rules without any further delay. ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from amending the existing R&P Rules to the disadvantage of the petitioner." 2. THE grouse of the petitioner as has been brought to this Court in the present writ petition is that though he is eligible in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules for promotion to the post of Research Officer, however, not considered without any rhyme and reason. Also that the proposal for amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules made to the 1st respondent being illegal may be quashed and that the respondents be restrained from amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioner on his appointment as Research Assistant is working as such w.e.f. 4th February, 2004 on the establishment of the 2nd respondent. The next channel of promotion from the post of Research Assistant is to that of Research Officer and for that in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules Annexure P-5, the procedure prescribed reads as follows :- Name of Selection Method of Qualification Grades from which the post or Non- recruitment for direct transfer/ promotion is with Scale selection recruitment to be made Research Selection 100% by N.A. By promotion from Officer Promotion amongst the grade of (Rs.7220- Research Assistant 11660) with eight years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade. 3. THE petitioner has acquired the requisite experience of 8 years as on 5th February, 2012. The post is also lying vacant since November, 2009. The same, however, has not been filled up, may be on account of the 2nd respondent had proposed the amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and vide Annexure R-1 forwarded the same for approval to the State Government. The stand of the 1st respondent, therefore, is that in view of the amendment sought in the recruitment and promotion Rules, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion as Research Officer. The stand of the 1st respondent, therefore, is that in view of the amendment sought in the recruitment and promotion Rules, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion as Research Officer. The 1st respondent, however, has rejected the proposal for amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and conveyed the decision so taken to the 2nd respondent vide letter No.GAD-C(A)3-1/10-loose, dated 21.7.2012, Annexure R-D to the reply filed on behalf of the said respondent. 4. NOW finally, the 2nd respondent vide letter No.VS/Estt(CWP4511/2012)6-12/2012, Annexure R-E to the reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent has decided to continue with the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Research Officer. Meaning thereby that as per these Rules, the petitioner is duly eligible for promotion to the post of Research Officer. His representation Annexure P-7 has not yet been decided and admittedly pending consideration with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion as Research Officer, in accordance with the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules, would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Research Officer within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner and if found suitable to promote him as such. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again against surviving grievances, if any. 5. WITH the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.