Subhash Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The Petitioner was originally working as Cleaner in the H.P. Public Works Department. His next promotional post was that of driver. 70% posts of drivers are filled in by direct recruitment and 30% by promotion. In case of promotion the educational qualifications are not applicable. However, the Cleaners must possess driving licence for the class of vehicle which they are to drive. Admittedly, the post is a non-selection post and promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.

The case of the Petitioner is that though he was senior to Respondents 4 to 7, he was not promoted and the said Respondents were promoted prior to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed the petition on 21.4.1996 challenging the promotions of Respondents No. 4 to 7.

In reply, the stand of the State is that a Committee was constituted to conduct interviews of the eligible work-charged cleaners to be promoted as drivers. These interviews were conducted on 2.5.1994. The name of the Applicant was recommended for promotion to the post of truck driver whereas the names of Respondents 4 to 7 were recommended for promotion as drivers in different categories. Since there was no vacancy of truck driver the Petitioner could not be promoted but on 16.5.1996 after the petition was filed the Petitioner was also promoted as Jeep/Gypsy driver.

To say the least, the procedure followed by the Department was totally illegal. Promotion had to be made in accordance with the Rules which only provided for promotion in accordance with seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The Petitioner was not unfit. In fact he was recommended for promotion as truck driver. The State has failed to justify its decision to form an interview committee when no selection was involved. There is also no explanation as to why the State categorized the drivers into different categories. Under the Rules, a driver is a driver whatever may be the vehicle he is to drive. Interestingly, though the Committee found the Petitioner unfit to drive a jeep and recommended his name for promotion as truck driver, later he was promoted as a jeep driver without any fresh interview being conducted. It is thus obvious that the Respondents being aware of the folly which was committed by them rectified the same immediately after the petition was filed.

The Petitioner was eligible to be promoted immediately after the interviews and as such he shall be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. 1.8.1994 the date from which Respondent No. 4 was promoted. The Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which shall be paid to him within four months from today. In case these benefits are not paid to him within the aforesaid period the State shall also be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 21.4.1996 when the Original Application was filed till payment of the entire amount.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.