IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.16351 of 2005
Date of decision 14.8.2008
Chandi Ram and others.
-----Petitioners.
v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and
others.
-----Respondents.
C.W.P. No.12367 of 2005
Date of decision: 14.8.2008
Mir Singh and others.
-----Petitioners.
v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and
others.
-----Respondents.
C.W.P. No.15747 of 2005
Gulab Singh and another.
-----Petitioners.
v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and
others.
-----Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate (in CWP No.16351 /05)
Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate (in CWP No.12367/05),
Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate (in CWP No.15747 /05)
for the petitioners.
2
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate
for respondents-HUDA.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajat Rathee, Advocate
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate
for private respondents.
----
JUDGMENT:
1. This judgment will dispose of CWP No.16351 of
2005, CWP No.12367 of 2005 and CWP No.15747 of 2005
as the issue involved in all the three petitions is common. For
purpose of this order, we are making a reference to the record
of CWP No.16351 of 2005.
2. Prayer in the petition is for quashing office order
dated 3.6.2005, Annexure P.3 and notification dated
22.8.2005, Annexure P.4 vide which cadre of Junior
Engineers and Sub Divisional Engineers in the Engineering
Wing of respondent No.1, Haryana Urban Development
Authority has been bifurcated into Civil cadre and Electrical
cadre.
3. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos. 1 to
6 are holding Diploma in Civil Engineering and degree in
3
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
Mechanical Engineering while petitioner No.7 is holding
diploma in Mechanical Engineering. All of them were
appointed as Junior Engineers as per Haryana Urban
Development Authority Service Regulations 1989. Next
promotion is to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer out of
Junior Engineers having diploma in Civil/Mechanical
Engineering or equivalent with 10 years experience or 10
years experience as Assistant Draftsman/Head Draftsman
Grade II/Head Draftsman Grade I or Junior
Engineer/Draftsman with degree in Civil Engineering or
equivalent with two years experience as Junior
Engineer/Draftsman or Associate Membership of Institute of
Engineers degree in Civil Engineering with five years
experience as Junior Engineer/Draftsman. Roster has been
specified for promotion out of different streams. Petitioner
Nos. 1 to 6 obtained degree of AMIE in Mechanical
Engineering and thus became eligible for promotion as well
as for direct appointment as per rules. However, employees
having degree in Civil Engineering made a representation
that only Civil Engineers should be considered as a
4
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
qualification for promotion. They filed CWP No.12430 of
2004 which was disposed of on 17.8.2004 with a direction to
decide legal notice of the petitioners therein by passing a
speaking order. In view of the said order, order dated
3.6.2005 was passed deciding to bifurcate cadre of Junior
Engineers into Civil and Electrical. Same was Annexure P.3.
In the said order, it is stated that technical comments from
National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and Engineer
in Chief, HUDA were taken on the representation of the
petitioners in CWP No.12430 of 2004 and it was decided that
decision of Standing Committee dated 10.4.2004 for
amendment of the rule be accepted and necessary
amendments be made. This was followed by notification
dated 22.8.2005 which had the effect of preferential
treatment in favour of candidates having Civil Engineering
diploma/degree.
4. In the reply, the stand taken is that there is no bar
to amendment being made to Service rules from time to time
and there is no vested right of promotion till the stage of
5
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
consideration. The rules have accordingly been amended as
per exigencies of service after considering the whole matter.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Main contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners is that bifurcation of cadre of Sub Divisional
Engineers into two sub cadres – Civil and Electrical affects
the promotion prospects of the petitioners. Those who have
Mechanical Engineering degree have option to go to the
cadre of Sub Divisional Engineers (Electrical) only, for
which very less number of posts are now available.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the work of Urban Development Authority requires more
Civil Engineers and, thus, candidates having degree of
Mechanical Engineering have been given option to go to the
cadre of Sub Divisional engineers (Electrical).
8. The question for consideration is whether change
in service conditions which has the effect of adversely
affecting the chances of promotion can be held to be illegal.
6
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, beyond
submitting that the amendment was arbitrary, have not been
able to show any law which stands in the way of amendment
to the rules which may affect the chances of promotion. It is
not the case of the petitioners that there is no power to amend
the rules. Only contention is that candidates having degree in
Electrical Engineering will have lesser chances of promotion
in future.
10. We are unable to accept the submission.
11. It is well settled that no employee has a vested
right to chances of promotion. In Ramchandra Shankar
Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1974 SC 259,it was
held that right to be considered for promotion was a
condition of service but mere chances of promotion are not.
Same view was reiterated in Mohammad, Shujat Ali v.
Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76, Reserve Bank of India v.
C.T. Dighe, (1981) 3 SCC 545, State of Maharashtra v.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, Reserve
Bank of India v. C. N. Sahasranaman, 1986 (Supp) SCC
143 and Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2
7
C.W.P. Nos. 16351, 12367 & 15747 of 2005
SCC 541. These decisions have been reiterated in later
decisions including Chandra Gupta, IFS v. Secy. Govt. of
India AIR 1995 SC 44.
12. In view of above, we do not find any merit in
these petitions.
13. Dismissed.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
August 14, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )
'gs' JUDGE
