- (1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.2.2007 (P-1) passed by respondent No. 1-Managing Director, Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by respondent No. 1. The petitioners who are working as Conductors in the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation have further prayed that Entry No. 20 of Appendix-A of the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1981 (for brevity, "the Regulations"), which stipulate that 15% posts of the Inspector will be filled up by selection from amongst the drivers who are atleast Matriculates and have a minimum experience of 7 years as driver in the Corporation, be declared ultra vires of the Constitution and the same be struck down being unlawful, unconstitutional and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector in preference to that of the drivers.
(2.) The petitioners have been appointed on various dates between 1978 to 1989 as Conductors. It has been claimed that they have performed duties even as Adda Incharge. Their grievance is that they being conductors are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector in preference to granting promotion to drivers. In that regard they had made representation which was decided in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court on 31.10.2006 in CWP No. 17207 of 2006 (P-4). The Managing Director has passed a speaking order, which reads as under :- "Accordingly, in pursuance of the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court the legal notice dated 11.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) served upon the respondent PRTC by the petitioners through their Counsel Shri Devinder Kumar Kaushal Advocate has been examined vis-a-vis the record of this office in order to decide the same by passing a speaking order. In nutshell, it may be added here that the petitioners had filed an appeal requesting that even though they had been working as conductors for the last 20 years and fulfilled all the qualifications as per Rules to be promoted as Inspector, yet due to illegal & unlawful provision, the Drivers are being promoted as Inspectors. According to them, this provision being illegal, arbitrary, null & void and unlawful is liable to be struck down. According to PRTC Conditions of Appointment & Service Regulations, 1981 by which the class III and IV employees of PRTC including the petitioners are being governed, while the petitioners being appointed as Conductors are eligible for promotion as Sub Inspectors on completion of 3 years of service on the principle of seniority-cum-merit and Sub Inspectors are further eligible for promotion as Inspector after 3 years of service, 15% of the Drivers/Yard Masters who are Matriculate and have 7 years experience in the Corporation are eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector. Since the PRTC Regulations ibid have duly been certified by the competent authority after following the prescribed procedure of inviting objections/representations from the quarters concerned as well as the Workers' Unions, therefore, there is no illegality in these Regulations of 1981. In the circumstances, therefore, I find no merit in the claim of petitioners for promoting them directly on the post of Inspector in place of Drivers in contravention of the Regulations and as such the same is rejected being devoid of any merit."
(3.) Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Entry-20 of Appendix-A of the Regulations is liable to be declared as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution because the drivers are required to be promoted in their own line as Yard Masters and they have no reasonable nexus in respect of discharge of their duties with the promotional post of Inspector. It has been pointed out that it is conductors only who can perform the duties of Inspector as against the drivers. According to the learned counsel, the duties of the drivers are entirely different in nature than those of the conductors and, therefore, it is conductors only who would be able to discharge the duties of Inspectors if they are compared with the drivers. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.2.2007 (P-1) has been attacked and prayer has been made for quashing the same.;