Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure P- 14), whereby, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of lecturer Workshop Practise has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of letter dated 13.05.2010 as well as letter dated 07.05.2010 (Annexures P-12 and P-13, respectively) issued by the respondents, whereby, respondent No.5 has been promoted to the post of Foreman Instructor and also for issuance of a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Lecturer Workshop Practise by considering his qualification of B.Tech. (Mechanical/Production in Engineering).
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Workshop Instructor in the Institution of respondents No.3 and 4 in the year, 1995. He joined his duty on 20.10.1995. Respondent no.5 was also appointed as Workshop Instructor. Earlier the promotions were to be made from the post of Workshop Instructor to the post of Foreman Instructor but in the meeting held in the year 2003, the post of Foreman Instructor was re-designated as Lecturer Workshop Practise. Thereafter, on acquiring higher qualification, petitioner filed a representation for claiming his promotion but his representation was rejected by the respondent authorities which is a subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Respondent No.5 was promoted. Petitioner has challenged the order of promotion of respondent No.5.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected, whereas, he was entitled for promotion on the basis of higher qualification which was acquired after getting permission from the respondent department. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.5 was not possessing qualification of Lecturer Workshop Practise and without taking into consideration his qualification, he has been promoted. Learned counsel also submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that as per College Bye-Laws 4.3, the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Lecturer Workshop Practise as respondent No.5 has been promoted. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 is the only diploma holder, whereas, the petitioner is having qualification of B.Tech. Mechnical/Production Engineering degree. Out of total four posts of Lecturer Workshop Practise, one post was filled up by promoting respondent No.5 as Foreman Instructor, whereas, the said post has been redesignated as Lecturer Workshop Instructor. Out of three posts, one post was filled up by direct appointment and the remaining two posts are still lying vacant. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 has been promoted in spite of not having the requisite qualification and the impugned order of rejection in not promoting the petitioner being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, is liable to be quashed.;