Ramesh Dogra vs. Hrtc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP(T) No.8047/2008 Decided on:26.5.2009

Ramesh Dogra and others. …Petitioners.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents.

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

Whether approved for reporting ?1 .No.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

The petitioners are working as Conductors in the respondentcorporation. Earlier the post of Inspector was filled up 25% by way of direct recruitment, 75% by way of promotion from amongst Conductors 65% and Drivers 10% within the grade. However, an amendment was carried on 27.8.1984 whereby the promotion quota was increased to 87½%. The post of Inspector was to be filled up 70% from the category of Conductors and 15% from the category of Drivers. An amendment was carried out in the year 1996 which came into force with effect from

¹ Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

22.3.1996. The quota for Conductors was fixed at 75% and 15% for the category of Drivers (Matriculate). Another amendment was carried as per the reply filed by the respondent-corporation whereby the quota for the category of Conductors remained the same i.e. 75%, however, it was increased qua the category of Drivers (Matriculate) to 20%.

Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of increasing the quota of drivers from time to time is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that as far as the Drivers are concerned they have separate channel of promotion to the post of Yard Master.

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has argued that the quota of Drivers for promotion to the posts of Inspectors is 20% which is meant for those drivers who are matriculate. According to him, as far as filling up the post of Yard Master is concerned, the Drivers are supposed to be having at least ten years of service.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

It is the prerogative of the employer to frame the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Corporation at its own wisdom has prescribed the ratio/quota for filling up the posts of Inspectors from the feeder categories of Drivers, Conductors and Booking Clerks. It is true that the Drivers have also the promotional avenue to the post of Yard Master. However, the minimum service required for promotion as Court Master is ten years. It appears that to remove stagnation in the category of Drivers, the Management had decided to provide them at least 20% promotional avenues for the post of Inspectors. The Drivers have to wait for at least ten years for promotion to the post of Yard Master, which would lead to stagnation and frustration in the category of drivers. The minimum length of service for considering the candidate for the post of Inspector as per Annexure A-3 is that the Conductor should have five years bus duty on route, Driver (Matriculate) with at least three years service and Booking Clerk at least with three years of service. The Drivers, who are to be promoted to the post of Inspector against 20% quota, are required to be matriculate. However, there is no qualification prescribed for drivers while being promoted to the post of Yard Master as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules though length of service required is ten years. This is the distinction which has been maintained by the employer. The Court will only interfere in case the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are framed in negation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same are arbitrary. In the present case there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ratio/quota provided in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by the employer for the feeder category to the post of Inspector is legal and valid.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

*awasthi*****

26.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J.