Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 677 (HP)

Meenakshi Mahajan v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-07-23

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The relief claimed in this petition, in substance, is to direct the respondent-department to create additional post of Deputy Director in different Divisions of State Forensic Science Laboratory so that it would result in creation of one post of Deputy Director which can be made available to the Assistant Directors in service by way of promotion. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no possibility of petitioner being appointed against the post of Deputy Director as per the present dispensation. Inasmuch as, there are twelve Assistant Directors working in the Forensic Department. As against that, there are only three posts of Deputy Directors; one post of Deputy Director is earmarked to DNA Division, which will never be available to the petitioner, who is working in Division other than DNA Division of Forensic Department. 4. As regards the Division in which the petitioner is working, there are only two posts of Deputy Directors, out of which one post is earmarked for promotional candidate. In other words, out of the three posts of Deputy Directors, only one post is available against which the eleven in service Assistant Directors working in Division other than DNA Division of Forensic Department stake their claim by way of promotion which, on the face of it, is inadequate opportunity and results in stagnation of the employees working as Assistant Directors. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner and similarly placed officers working as Assistant Directors are already receiving pay scale much more than the minimum of higher pay scale of the post of Deputy Director. In that sense, it is not open to the State to contend that by creating additional post of Deputy Director, there would be any financial implication for the State. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India and others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and others; (2008) 5 SCC 100 . 6. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in mind the stand taken by the respondent, in our opinion, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. In the first place it is admitted position that at least one promotional post of Deputy Director is available to the petitioner and similarly placed officers. They are working in Class-I post. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in mind the stand taken by the respondent, in our opinion, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. In the first place it is admitted position that at least one promotional post of Deputy Director is available to the petitioner and similarly placed officers. They are working in Class-I post. The fact, that there is no much difference between the qualification required for the post of Deputy Director and that of Assistant Director, cannot be the basis to issue direction to the respondent-department to create one additional post of Deputy Director. 7. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of no opportunity of promotion available to the petitioner at all. The petitioner can always be considered against the one promotional post of Deputy Director as and when she becomes due for consideration. The fact that the petitioner has been working in the post of Assistant Director for more than 13 years does not mean that no opportunity of promotion is available to the petitioner. 8. In the case before the Supreme Court, it was noticed that the work force of Engineers in the Corporation was about 1% of its total work force and that the employees of the Corporation working in that capacity ended up with stagnation with no promotional avenue for them. In the present case, however, it is not a case of no promotional avenue available at all but of relatively less opportunity which can be extended only in order of seniority and other eligibility criteria. In our opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court, pressed into service, will be of no avail to the petitioner. 9. The argument of the petitioner that one post of Deputy Director by way of promotion is inadequate also does not commend to us. Inasmuch as there are only three posts of Deputy Directors in the Department of Forensic. Further, it is not in dispute that out of that, one post is earmarked for DNA Division. In other words, for Divisions other than DNA Division, there are only two posts of Deputy Directors. Out of that, one post is earmarked for promotional appointment. In that sense, it works out to 50% of the total available sanctioned strength of posts of Deputy Directors in Division other than DNA Division. In other words, for Divisions other than DNA Division, there are only two posts of Deputy Directors. Out of that, one post is earmarked for promotional appointment. In that sense, it works out to 50% of the total available sanctioned strength of posts of Deputy Directors in Division other than DNA Division. This, by no standards, can be said to be inadequate opportunity available to the incumbents. The respondent in the reply-affidavit has placed on record that the Central Government in similar Department provides for only 33% quota for promotional posts. 10. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.