The petitioner challenged separate cadres and seniority lists for Sub Divisional Engineers in Building and Public Health branches under Chandigarh Housing Board regulations, arguing arbitrariness and restriction on promotion. The Court found the regulations constitutional and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 10787 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 10787 of 2010 Date of decision 8.7.2010
Er. Kailash Garg
... Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr.R.D. Bawa ,Advocate for the petitioner
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner who has been working as Sub Divisional Engineer in Chandigarh Housing Board has approached this Court for striking down the provisions of Schedule attached to Chandigarh Housing Board (Officers and Servants) Service Regulations 2003 (for brevity 'the Regulations') which provides for separate and district category of Sub Divisional Engineers (Building) and Sub Divisional Engineers (Public Health) as also Executive Engineer (Building) and Executive Engineer ( Public Health). The basis of the aforesaid challenge is that the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineers (Public Health) comprise of 4 posts whereas that of Sub Divisional Engineers (Building) has 16 posts. It has also been asserted that both the posts have same qualifications and incumbents to the posts are interchangeable although their seniority is kept separate for the purposes of consideration for further promotion to the one post of Executive Engineer (Public Health) and four posts of Executive Engineers (Building).
CWP No. 10787 of 2010 2
The petitioner also prays for issuance of a direction to the Chandigarh Housing Board for considering him for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer by treating the Public Health Branch and Building Branch as one where the petitioner could be seniormost Sub Divisional Engineer. According to Regulation 1, appointment by promotion to Group 'A', 'B' and 'C' posts is to be made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time as per the criterion and method prescribed in the schedule annexed with the Regulations. According to Schedule (P.6) the post of Executive Engineer (Building) is to be filled up by promotion to the extent of 50% from Sub Divisional Engineers (Building) who has a degree or equivalent qualification and 50% from (Civil Engineering) Diploma holders with 8 years regular service as such in the cadre. They should have passed the departmental examination as per Regulation 8.10. Likewise the post of Executive Engineer ( Public Health) is to be filled up to the extent of 50% from amongst Sub Divisional Engineers (Public Health) degree holder and rest 50% from diploma (Civil Engineers) with 8 years regular service as such in the cadre. The diploma should be in Public Health/ Sanitary / Civil Engineering and should have passed the departmental examination as specified in Regulation 8.10(ii). It necessarily follows that Sub Divisional Engineer (Public Health) would be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Public Health) and likewise Sub Divisional Engineer (Building) is to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Building). For both the posts the quota of 50% for degree holder has been prescribed.
We have heard Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the
CWP No. 10787 of 2010 3
petitioner at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no arbitrariness or unfairness within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution in enforcement of the Regulations. It is well settled that if a separate cadre in a service has been carved out with separate seniority list of each cadre then intermingling of the same without any rule could not be possible. It is within the power of the rule-making authority to carve out cadre and allocate them specific quota as has been done by Regulation 7.1 (1)(a) and (b) read with the schedule. The Regulation by no stretch of imagination could be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution.
The other argument that the petitioner would not be promoted has failed to impress us because the petitioner is seniormost in the seniority list of Sub Divisional Engineers (Public Health) as per the seniority list (P.2). Moreover, he has been granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in order to break any stagnation on a particular pay scale as has been conceded by Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. There is thus no merit in the petition. Dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge
okg
3 issues framed by the court
Whether separate cadres with separate seniority lists for Sub Divisional Engineers (Building) and (Public Health) violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner is barred from promotion despite the separate categories.
Whether the service regulations allocating specific quotas and seniority lists are arbitrary or unfair.
Er. Kailash Garg
Chandigarh Housing Board
M.M. Kumar
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
