Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the Communication Annexure P -2 dated 1.6.2004 and Notification Annexure P -3 dated 22.6.2004, whereby Regulation 9 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965, was amended so as to contemplate 75% posts to be filled up from amongst Degree Holders Engineers with 5 years experience, whereas remaining 25% were to be filled up amongst Engineers subordinates i.e. Diploma Holders with 5 years experience.
(2.) THE petitioners are Diploma Holders working as Junior Engineers with the respondent -Nigam. The promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The Regulation 9 of the said Regulations, as it stood prior to amendment on 22.6.2004, contemplates 22 1/2% quota to be filled in by promotion amongst Diploma Holder Junior Engineers with 5 years experience; 12 1/2% by promotion from amongst Degree Holder Junior Engineers having 5 years experience and remaining 65% by direct recruitment. By virtue of the amendment on 22.6.2004, the direct recruitment quota has been fixed as 25% for Diploma Holders by promotion, whereas remaining 75% quota was granted to the Degree Holders. The petitioners challenge the increase of quota of 75% in respect of Degree Holders as highly excessive and arbitrary. It is also challenged that two existing vacancies are required to be filled as per the unamended Regulation -9, but the same have been filled in from amongst the Degree Holder Junior Engineers by promotion, which is illegal. In respect of the first argument that 75% quota meant for Degree Holders is highly excessive, it is suffice to state that the manner of filling up of the posts, the quota for each categories of the feeder cadre etc. falls within the administrative discretion of the Rule making authority. Since Rule making authority has fixed 75% quota to be filled in amongst the Degree Holders and 25% from amongst the Diploma Holders, it cannot be said that the policy of such fixation of quota is arbitrary and unreasonable perse. There is neither any data or other material to substantiate the said plea.
(3.) IN respect of filling up of 2 posts arisen prior to amendment of Regulation -9 on 22.6.2004 from amongst the Degree Holders, it has been pointed out that there were 4 posts of Assistant Engineers in the respondent Nigam. Two posts fell to the quota of direct recruits and one each to the category of the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders to be filled up by promotion. The post of Degree Holders and Diploma Holders stands occupied. Whereas two posts of direct recruitment were vacant. Such two posts falling to the quota of direct recruitment have been filled in by promotion amongst the Degree Holders. It is, thus, evident that the sole post which fell to the share of Diploma Holders was occupied prior to 22.6.2004. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right of appointment to the post falling to the category of direct recruits.;