- (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Appendix B" of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Junior Engineers (Group B) Service Rules, 2011 (for short "2011 Rules") notified on 21.11.2011, in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules repeal the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Overseers Engineers State Service Class-III Rules, 1955 (for short "the old Rules"). The few facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition lie in a narrow compass, are noticed hereafter and the change brought about by the 2011 Rules in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer is dwelt upon.
(2.) The petitioners are Junior Draftsmen working under the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Punjab and are currently posted at Ranjit Sagar Dam, District Pathankot. They were initially appointed as Tracers on different dates ranging from 1.4.1985 to 31.12.1990. The post of Tracer was re-designated as Junior Draftsman and that is how the petitioners came to occupy that post. In the old Rules which governed Class III service in the respondent department prior to 15.7.1997, Junior Draftsmen who did not hold the qualification of Diploma in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution were not entitled to promotion as Junior Engineer. On 15.7.1997, the 1955 rules were amended and Junior Draftsmen and Surveyors who had experience of working as such in the department for a minimum period of five years and who had obtained diploma in Civil or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering meanwhile from a recognized institution were granted a right to promotion as Junior Engineer under Rule 10 (iv) by carving out a quota of 10% of the posts in the cadre strength of Junior Engineers from amongst Junior Draftsmen and Surveyors (for short "the old Group") as feeder category posts to their exclusive advantage. The petitioners assert that they acquired the Diploma qualification during service after permission to study further. They were awaiting promotion to the next higher post of Junior Engineer when the 1955 Rules were repealed and replaced by the 2011 Rules w.e.f. 21.11.2011. A vital change was brought about in the new Rules. Apart from the post of Junior Draftsmen and Surveyors, there were posts of Work Mistri, Earth Work Mistri and Technical Supervisor as well, in the respondent department who had the experience of a minimum period of five years service on regular basis and who had obtained diploma in Civil or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering from a State Technical Education Board or from a recognized University or institution. Both the categories came to be clubbed together, equated and placed at a level playing field for consideration for promotion as Junior Engineers to the extent of 10% of the cadre strength of the promotional posts. Though not relevant, it may not be out of place to mention that 3% of the posts of Junior Engineer have been granted to Foreman/Assistant Foreman, Pump Operator, Dumper/Dozer Operator and Supervisor and 2% from amongst the Electrician and Chargeman (Electrical) under the new rules. But, for these categories the experience level has been increased to 10 years with the uniform policy that they should be also holders of diplomas in their respective fields of engineering. Appendix B, where the change has been brought about, draws strength from Rule 5 of the new rules which deals with the method of appointment, qualification and experience. It has been laid down in Rule 5 that appointment to the service shall be made in the manner specified in Appendix B and the method of appointment by promotion shall be on the basis of senioritycum-merit. The new rules have been challenged in this petition on various grounds.The basic complaint is against the creation of a new source of promotion from amongst the new group of Work Mistri, Earth Work Mistri and Technical Supervisor (new group) in the feeder cadre, and therefore, sharing of the 10% quota for consideration for promotion as Junior Engineer.
(3.) The grounds of challenge are that the work content and profile of Junior Draftsmen and Surveyors is different from that of the new group and the two cannot be placed at par. It is argued that the new group and particularly Work Mistri and Earth Work Mistri are semi-skilled workers and cannot be equated or clubbed with Junior Draftsmen and Surveyor which are highly skilled jobs. The merger effected is contrary to the nature of jobs. It is pleaded that the pay scales of both the groups are different, and therefore, they should not be clubbed together merely on having acquired higher qualifications. Furthermore it is claimed that the petitioners have an exclusive right to promotion against vacancies, de hors the challenge to the rules, which arose prior to the amended rules and by this amendment, the respondent-authorities have sought to defeat the accrued rights of the petitioners and other similarly situated employees in the respondent-department. The decision in Y.V.Rangaiah vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao, 1983 3 SCC 284 is relied upon in support of the plea inasmuch as it is urged that vacancies which accrued prior to the amended rules, have to be filled in accordance with the un-amended rules and not by the new rules.;