Subhash Chand Pathania vs State of H.P. and Others

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated 5th May, 1999 (Annexure P-6) whereby 4th and 5th respondents have been promoted to the post of Labour Inspector and order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the representation of the petitioner. At the outset I note that one of the grounds which has been urged for setting aside the appointment is that the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which meet and considered the case of the parties for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector, contains alterations in which the name of Raj Kumar respondent No. 5 was inserted. It was pleaded, this change was made by respondent No. 3, who was the Joint Labour Commissioner at that time and Member of this Departmental Promotion Committee. I called for and examined the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and found that there interpolations were infact in the names for consideration which practice is to be deprecated and cannot be accepted under any circumstance. However, for the purposes of the present petition, I do not intend to say anything save and except that such practice reeks of a nonchalant attitude by the respondent-State and accommodating and considering persons at the eleventh hour itself constitutes a fact sufficient to invoke suspicion with respect to the validity of the proceedings. This is not the accepted manner for consideration. Such practice cannot but be deprecated. I would have adjudicated on the point further, but for the fact that I find that the petitioner herein was not eligible for consideration to the post in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-3) since he was not in the zone of consideration.

According to the Rules, the post of Labour Inspector is a non-selection post which is to be filled in 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. Clause-(10) and (11) of the Rules provides:-

The petitioner admittedly had exercised his option to join the cadre of Statistical Assistant which is not in the feeder cadre. It is for this reason that his name could not have been included in the zone of consideration. In these circumstances the petitioner once having exercised his option to change his stream by a conscious choice be heard to say that he should and ought to have been considered. This writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. In conclusion, I may place on record my displeasure in the manner in which the State has been manipulating the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.