Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 70 (HP)

Chet Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-01-10

KURIAN JOSEPH, RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Cattle Attendant on daily wage basis on 24.1.1992. He was regularized on 29.7.2002. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Beldar on 23.2.1992. He was also regularized on 23.5.2002. 2. Respondent-State has framed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called “Himachal Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Pharmacist (Class-III, Non Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002” under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These Rules were notified on 23.5.2002. According to these Rules, the total cadre strength of Veterinary Pharmacist was 2066. The minimum qualification prescribed for direct recruitment was matriculation examination with Science (Physics and Chemistry) or its equivalent examination from a recognized Board/University recognized by the State Government and should have passed the prescribed Veterinary Pharmacist training course from departmental training centre for the duration as may be prescribed in the Training Regulations of this category by the Government from time to time. 75% posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment and remaining 25% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. Minimum educational qualification for the promotees was also the same as prescribed for direct recruits. 25% promotional posts were to be filled up from amongst the departmental Class-IV employees, who were matric pass with science or its equivalent examination from a recognized University or Board and also possessed one year regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service rendered upto 31.3.1998 plus five years service on daily wages in the Department. He should have also passed the prescribed pharmacist training course from the Departmental Training Centre for the duration as prescribed in the Training Regulations for this category by the Government from time to time. 3. The respondent-State amended the Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 31.7.2003. For the existing provision, against column No. 7(A) I, the following provision was substituted, namely: “Should have passed the 10+2 or its equivalent examination and also should have passed the Matriculation Examination with Science (Physics and Chemistry) from the Board/University recognized by the State Government.” 4. For the existing provision against column No.10, the following was substituted: “87 ½% by direct recruitment. 12½ % by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.” 5. For the existing provision against column No.10, the following was substituted: “87 ½% by direct recruitment. 12½ % by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.” 5. Similarly, in the existing provision against column No.11, the following substitution was made: “By promotion from amongst the departmental Class-IV employees who possess one year regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service rendered in the grade plus 5 years service on daily wages in the department: Provided that he should have passed the prescribed Pharmacist Training Course from Departmental Training Centres for the duration as prescribed in the Training Regulations of this category by the Government from time to time.” 6. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that since the petitioners have completed one year’s regular service before the amendment was carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 31.7.2003, they were fully eligible to undergo Veterinary Pharmacist training under 25% promotion quota. 7. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioners have completed regular service of one year only on 29.7.2003, their candidature could not be sponsored. He has further contended that the petitioners could be considered if they were eligible as per letter dated 26.9.2002, i.e. Annexure P-2. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 9. Petitioners have been regularized on 29.7.2002. The Recruitment and Promotions were amended on 31.7.2003. Thus, the petitioners were qualified under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules promulgated on 23.5.2002. The minimum essential qualification for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist training under 25% promotion quota was matriculation examination with science subject. It is stated in the reply that the petitioners were not eligible since they have not completed one year’s regular service, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified in the year 2002. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioners should have one year’s regular service as on 31.7.2003, as prescribed vide Annexure P-2 dated 26.9.2002. 10. As far as Annexure P-2 dated 26.09.2002 is concerned, it was merely an intimation sent by the Director, Animal Husbandry to all the Heads of Offices in the Animal Husbandry Department to initiate the process of sponsoring in service Class-IV employees in the near future for undergoing Two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. 10. As far as Annexure P-2 dated 26.09.2002 is concerned, it was merely an intimation sent by the Director, Animal Husbandry to all the Heads of Offices in the Animal Husbandry Department to initiate the process of sponsoring in service Class-IV employees in the near future for undergoing Two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. However, the fact of the matter is that the respondent-Department has started sponsoring the names of the eligible candidates, who have passed their matriculation examination before 31.07.2003, after the judgment rendered by us in C.W.P. No.1646/2011-B, decided on 21.12.2011 with analogous matters. Since the petitioners have completed one year’s regular service on 31.7.2003, they were fully eligible to be sponsored for the Veterinary Pharmacist training under 25% promotional quota. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent-State is directed to sponsor the names of the petitioners for undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist training, which has commenced from 1.1.2013. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.