Chandi Ram And Others vs Unknown on 14 August, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandi Ram And Others vs Unknown on 14 August, 2008

                    AT CHANDIGARH.

                                   C.W.P. No.16351 of 2005
                                   Date of decision 14.8.2008
Chandi Ram and others.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and

                                    C.W.P. No.12367 of 2005
                                   Date of decision: 14.8.2008
Mir Singh and others.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and
                                    C.W.P. No.15747 of 2005
Gulab Singh and another.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and


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.
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.

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


3. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos. 1 to

6 are holding Diploma in Civil Engineering and degree in
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
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


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
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.
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
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 )

August 14, 2008               ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )
'gs'                                  JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *