Matriculate Supervisors with 15 years regular service eligible for 4% promotion quota to Junior Engineer under 2012 Rules' unqualified category, without Civil Diploma or unprovided training; denial on extraneous grounds violates Articles 14, 16.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Manohar Lal, had filed CWP No.5733 of 2014 before this Court and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and now upon its abolition, the same has been transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.4494 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i). That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents Corporation to promote the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. the juniors are promoted.”

2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner possesses the Diploma in Agricultural Engineering from Government Polytechnic Sirsa Haryana and he was engaged as a Daily Waged Supervisor in Respondent-Corporation. It is averred that on 01.10.2009, the petitioner submitted a representation for considering his case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer from the feeder cadre of Supervisor [re-named as Work Inspector] but the case was rejected on 19.02.2010 [Annexure P-4] on the ground that no vacant post of Junior Engineer was available.
2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Rejection Orders dated 19.02.2010 [Annexure P-4] the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.01.2013 [Annexure P-3] followed by a legal notice on 18.11.2013 requesting to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer but in vain. It is averred that though the petitioner is eligible for the post of Junior Engineer from amongst the feeder grade of Supervisor/Work Inspector but the respondents directed the petitioner to establish that the Diploma in Agricultural Engineering was equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering vide letter dated 02.12.2013 [Annexure P-5], so as to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junor Engineer (Civil) in Respondent-Corporation.
In this backdrop, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking a direction to the Respondent-Corporation to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS-CORPORATION IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 04.09.2014, Respondent-Corporation has filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 03.12.2014 of Manager Administration [Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Shimla].
3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that there is no provision in the RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES for post of Junior Engineer (Civil) which entitles a person possessing Diploma in Agricultural Engineering [Annexure R-1] to be considered for promotion under the said Rules. Paras 3 & 5 of Reply-Affidavit indicate that petitioner is working as a Supervisor [renamed as Work Inspector] in Respondent-Corporation at Hamirpur. Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 2007 [Annexure R-2] the provision of Rule 11(iv) provided that 2.5% posts in cadre of Junior Engineer were to be filled from Supervisor/Work Inspectors.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further shows that since no vacancy was available on earlier occasions, therefore, the petitioner was not considered. However, Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner will be considered, subject to his eligibility in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that Diploma in Agricultural Engineering possessed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the Diploma in Civil Engineering as required under the Rules. In this backdrop, Respondent-Corporation has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitioner.

REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioner has filed rejoinder, rebutting the stand taken by the Respondent-Corporation in the Reply-Affidavit.
4(i). Petitioner has stated in rejoinder that the factum that the Diploma in Agricultural Engineering is not equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering as required under RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES cannot stand in the way of the petitione