IMPORTANT POINT
Head of the Department in Engineering would not include Heads of the Department in Applied Sciences.

ORDER

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who is a Head of Department in the Applied Sciences, was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal of the Engineering Institute under the unamended Rules known as Haryana Technical Education Department (Group-A) Service (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).

2. The appellant was appointed as far back in 1975 as a lecturer in English in a Government Polytechnic, for Women, Ambala. Subsequently, on 23rd of May, 1983 she was promoted to the next higher post of Head of Department in applied sciences. It is not in dispute that under the Rules no provision existed as regards grant of promotion to the head of the Department of non-technical institution to the post of Principal.

3. The appellant with some other persons filed a writ petition No. 16160/1990 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A Division Bench of the High Court by reason of a Judgment and order 18.3.1991 at the threshold dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioners being belonging to the Engineering side as also being head of the Department thereof can claim for consideration for their promotion on that side. Subsequently a post of Principal in Engineering Institute fell vacant. It appears that the appellant was promoted to the post of Principal on Engineering side.

4. Questioning the same, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution came to be filed before the Punjab and Harayna High Court challenging the promotion of the appellant on the ground that she was not eligible for being promoted to the post of principal in Engineering Institute. The High Court, after having found that the appellant was not eligible for being promoted to the post of Principal in Engineering Institute, set aside the said order of promotion. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal, by means of special leave petition, before us.

5. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that the question as to whether the appellant belonged to the Engineering side or non-Engineering side has already been determined by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 16160/1990 and thus the impugned judgment must be held to be bad inasmuch as a coordinate Bench of the High Court could not have take a different view. Learned counsel would contend that in such a situation the only course left open to the High Court was to refer the matter to a bench of three Judges. Learned counsel would contend that as no appeal was filed against the aforementioned judgment dated 25th March, 1991 it attained finality and the State was bound thereby.

6. The said submission loses much of its relevance, keeping in view the fact that the respondents herein were not parties to the said decision as by reason the wrong interpretation of the statutory rules at the threshold, the High Court could not have interfered with the rights of the third parties. Furthermore, this Court independently is required to interpret the rules. It may further be noted that the High Court in its judgment in our considered opinion, has correctly held that the questions which had been raised before the High Court had not been raised before the earlier Division Bench.

7. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter on merits, as regards the eligibility of the appellant for promotion to the post of Principal on Engineering side.

The relevant portion of Rule 9 runs as under :-

9(1) Recruitment of the Service shall be made,-

(a) ... ... ...

(b) ... ... ...

(c) in case of Principals of Polytechnics/Technical Institutions offering diplomas in Engineering Trades,-

(i) 75% by promotion from amongst Heads of Departments in Engineering; and

(ii) 25% by direct recruitment; or

(iii) by transfer or deputation of an officer already in the service of any S