Amended promotion rules' 45% quota for Junior Engineers with 7 years service contains no Diploma/Degree requirement; unqualified seniors eligible; DPC rejection on qualification grounds invalid.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. That the impugned order dated 02/07/2025 Annexure P5 and P6 may kindly be set aside and quashed.

2. That by way of writ of certiorari the action of the respondent no. 2 where vide Annexure P5 strar and P6 the Junior Persons to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) while the petitioner has been ignored without assigning any reason may kindly be set aside and quashed and by way of writ of mandamus respondent no. 2 may be given direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant engineer (civil) w.e.f. 02/07/2025 when junior person (respondent no. 3 and 4) were given promotion with all consequential benefits flowing there from.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Supervisor on a daily wage basis with the respondent- Corporation in the year 1988. At the relevant time, he was possessing the qualification of a 2 years Diploma from ITI Institute Samshi, District Kullu, in the trade of Building Construction. After completion of 10 years of daily basis service, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.01.1999. Thereafter, he was promoted against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), vide order dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure P-1). According to the petitioner, the next promotional post from the post of Junior Engineer is that of Assistant Engineer. His grievance is that in terms of Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6, dated 02.07.2025, the private respondents, who are junior to him as Junior Engineer, stand promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, whereas, he has been arbitrarily ignored, despite the fact that he was fully eligible for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in vogue, as on the date when the DPC was convened.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was convened in the year 2025 and the Rules in vogue governing promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, were the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002, notified by the Public Works Department, as amended vide Notification dated 15.10.2005, which Rules were being followed by the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the prevailing Rules, copy whereof is appended with the petition at Page No.45 of the paper book, a Junior Engineer (Civil), having 7 years of regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service in the grade, was, inter alia, eligible for promotion. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner, on inquiry, was informed that the DPC did not consider him eligible for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer as he was not possessing the qualification of a Diploma or Degree in Civil Engineering, so as to render him eligible for promotion to the said post. Learned counsel argued that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on this count is, prima facie, bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law, because there was no condition in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prevailing at the relevant time governing promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer that only those Junior Engineers (Civil) were eligible for promotion under the 45% quota, who were either Degree holders or Diploma holders. Learned counsel thus argued that as rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is in violation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the promotion o