Point of Law: Recruitment - plea raised by the petitioners is fallacious - As mere acquiring of qualification at a relevant point of time cannot give rise to an expectation, much less, legitimate expectation of appointment.

ORDER :

One of the main issues raised in these petitions is whether old vacancies are required to be filled-up on the basis of old Rules.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all these petitions possessed the minimum qualification of 10+2, two years diploma in Medical Lab Technology and were registered with the Medical Council, as was the eligibility prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Medical Laboratory Technician, Grade-II, in the year 2004.

3. However, their grievance is that since the vacancies of Medical Laboratory Technician were not filled-up at the relevant time, therefore, these vacancies should be filled-up on the basis of old Rules and not on the basis of amended/repealed Rules, effected vide notification dated 11.09.2012, whereby minimum qualification has been changed to 10+2 with only Science and subsequently B.Sc. Medical Laboratory Technology/B.Sc Medical Technology Laboratory/B.Sc Medical Technology Laboratory/B.Sc Medical Laboratory Science/B.Sc. in Medical Laboratory Technology (Lateral), has been made essential qualification vide notification dated 17.01.2020.

4. It is in this background that the petitioners have sought quashing of notification dated 17.01.2020 and have further sought directions to the respondents not to give effect to the amended Rules and filled-up the posts on the basis of old Rules, i.e. Rules prevalent in the year, 2004.

5. The issue whether old vacancies are required to be filled-up on the basis of old Rules is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by three Judges Bench in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011, decided on 20th May, 2022.

6. The facts therein were that the posts of Labour Officers were governed by Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966, dated 01.03.1966 made in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. There were 5 posts of Labour Officers and these were to be filled-up by promotion from (i) Factory Inspectors, (ii) Labour Inspectors and (iii) Sectt. Superintendents, being the feeder category.

7. On 20.07.2006, Secretary, Labour and Employment Department addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner intimating sanction for creation of additional posts in the department which inter alia included 7 more posts for Labour officers. As a consequence of the said decision, the total posts of Labour Officers increased from 5 to 12. At this point in time respondents No. 1 to 3 were working as Labour Inspectors in the service of the State.

8. Within four months from the sanction of the additional posts, the 1966 Rules came to be amended on 25.11.2006. Under the New Rules called the H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Classs-II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules, 2006, recruitment to the post of Labour Officers was to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. The effect of the New Rules coupled with the 7 new posts for Labour Officers is that from total number of 12 posts of Labour Officers, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75%) and direct recruitment posts came to 3 (being 25%). The State accordingly issued a notification creating 12 Labour zones in the State.

9. It is in this background that respondents No. 1 to 3, therein, who had been working as Labour Inspectors approached the Administrative Tribunal assailing the proposed action of the State Government in filling-up 25% of the posts of Labour Officers by direct recruitment. They contended that the vacancies arose in July, 2006 i.e. before the promulgation of the New Rules and therefore, should be filled-up only by way of promotion as was the provisions prevalent in the Rules operational at that time.

10. By its order dated 24.01.2007, the Tribunal directed the State to consider the grievance raised in the Original Application, as if it was a represent