Dismissed

Rajinder Singh Negi v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Apr 2024CWP/2432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his ineligibility for promotion to the post of Block Elementary Education Officer. The Court held that the prescribed qualifications under the 1981 rules are relevant and within the State's exclusive policy discretion, and the petitioner failed to establish any violation of the Constitution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajinder Singh Negi Vs State of Hp… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

C.W.P.No.2432 of 2024

¶5

Reserved on 21.3.2024

¶6

Decided on: 19.04.2024

¶7

Rajinder Singh Negi ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ...Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?

¶11

For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr.Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Sushant Kaprate and Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Mr. Sidharth Jalta and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocates Generals.

¶12

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.

¶13

The petitioner had been appointed as a JBT on 22.12.1994. He was

¶14

then promoted as Head Teacher on 28.9.2005 on recommendations of a

¶15

¶16

Departmental Promotional Committee and later to the post of Central Head Teacher on 9.6.2008.

¶17

The next promotional post is Block Elementary Education Officer.

¶18

As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed vide notification dt.9.4.1981, the said post is to be filled up either from amongst the matriculate JBTs or JBTs having 15 years service as such.

¶19

Petitioner’s grievance is that he is not eligible to be considered for the said post in view of the above Rule as he is no longer a JBT, having ceased to be a JBT in 2005. He contends that since he has been rendering service as Central Head Teacher for more than 15 years and has completed more than 29 years service from the date he was appointed as a JBT, he ought to be considered for promotion to the said post. According to him, incumbents who are much below him in the Seniority list for the post of Central Head Teacher are being made to sit over and above him, and this action on part of respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶20

He therefore prayed for the following reliefs:

¶21

(a) quashing of the notification dt.9.4.1981 providing for promotion to

¶22

post of Block Elementary Education Officer

¶23

¶24

(b) directing the respondents to amend/frame new recruitment and Promotion rules for the post of Block Elementary Education Officer so that service rendered as central head teacher and had teacher, both combined, are taken into consideration/counted as qualifying service for making promotion to the said post and thereafter to consider him for promotion to the said post.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions.

¶26

We may point out that suitability of qualification for a post is not for the Court to determine. ( See J.Rangaswamy v. Govt.of Andhra

¶27

Pradesh¹ ).

¶28

In P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General² , the Supreme Court declared:

¶29

“Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and

¶30

1 (1990)1 SCC 288

¶31

2 (2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191, at page 639

¶32

¶33

other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” (emphasis supplied)

¶34

8. Similar view has been taken in Chandigarh Admn. v. Usha Kheterpal Waie³ where the Court reiterated: :

¶35

“It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P.( 1 supra) and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant Genera l⁴ . )” (emphasis supplied)

¶36

3 (2011) 9 SCC 645 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 567, at page 650

¶37

¶38

In the instant case we are of the opinion that the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Block Elementary Education officer (from amongst the matriculate JBTs or JBTs having 15 years service as such) cannot be said to not relevant or not having a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the said post . Counsel has not been able to establish that prescription of such a qualification is violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules.

¶39