Point of Law : Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to language used in order itself.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following substantive reliefs :

“(i) For quashing and setting aside Annexure P-13 rejecting representation of the petitioner.

(ii) for holding that review DPCs held by the respondents in respect of promotion of petitioners/private respondent JE (AMIE) to the post of Assistant Engineers (PWD) as well as the resultant re-drawn seniority list of AE vide Annexure P-7 dated 1.3.2014 and vide Annexure P-8 dated 1.3.2016 qua the petitioners and private respondents are illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside. Consequently, all actions taken on the basis of these lists w.r.t. petitioners and private respondents be also declared illegal and void.

(iii) for directing the respondents not to apply the judgment of S.S. Kutlehria for counting seniority.”

2. The background facts of the present matter in brief are that prior to 27.4.1994, HPPWD was a unified unit as a department, which came to be bifurcated after said date into two separate units i.e. PWD (B&R) and I&PH.

3. The petitioners and private respondents No. 2 to 14 were inducted as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers in the unified HPPWD before its bifurcation. Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer in unified HPPWD were notified on 18.9.1978 (for short, ‘1978 Rules’). As per these rules, 40% quota was meant for direct recruitment and 60% by promotion. Out of 60% promotional quota, 10% was meant for the Graduate Junior Engineers, having three years regular or ad-hoc service or both as such and those Junior Engineers, who had passed Sections A and B of AMIE with five years regular or ad-hoc service or both as such.

4. The R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Engineer in HPPWD were amended on 11.6.1984 (for short, ‘1984 Rules’) and in place of 10% quota by way of promotion for Graduate Engineers and AMIE, as noticed above, the following amendment was carried:-

“(iii) from amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers (University graduate or AMIE) having three years regular or ad-hoc service rendered upto 31.12.1983 or both as such….. 10%.

Note:- For purposes of promotion, three years regular or ad-hoc service rendered upto 31.12.1983 shall be counted from the date of appointment of the Graduate Junior Engineers and from the date of passing Sections A & B of AMIE Examination by in service Junior Engineers respectively”.

5. The note appended to above said amendment became subject matter of challenge before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 7.6.1991, the challenged footnote in 1984 Rules was struck down being discriminatory and anomalous.

6. After bifurcation of HPPWD, Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in PWD (B&R) were re-enacted in 1995 (for short, ‘1995 Rules’). Under these rules, a separate quota of 10% was provided for Graduate Engineers with three years of service and a distinct quota of 10% was prescribed by promotion from amongst JE (C), who acquired AMIE or its equivalent degree during service as JE (C), having three years regular or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.3.199) service in the grade. 1995 rules in PWD (B&R) were subsequently amended from time to time in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2010 but no change was effected so far as 10% quota for JE (C), who acquires AMIE or equivalent degree during service, was affected. Noticeably, a separate 45% quota was also prescribed for Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who had rendered seven years regular or ad-hoc or both the services as such. A separate quota was also there for direct recruitment.

7. An inter-se dispute between Graduate Junior Engineers and those who had acquired AMIE or equivalent degree in service became the subject matter of CWP No. 1358 of 2008, titled as, S.S. Kutlehria & others vs. State of H.P. & others. The dispute had arisen in the context of the provisions of 1984 Rules, as existed prior to bifurcation of HPPWD. The issue considered by a Division