SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Raj) 862

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
C.R. Chaudhary and other - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and other - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1768 of 1998.
Decided On : 8-01-1999

In service matters, the question of seniority should not be reopened after a reasonable period, as it disturbs the settled position and affects the rights of others.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE - SENIORITY - RULE 25 OF THE RAJASTHAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (EMERGENCY RECRUITMENT) RULES 1976 - INTERPRETATION - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - LACHES - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, officers in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, sought directions to hold a meeting of the DPC for filling up vacancies for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98, to strike down the action of respondents for not holding the DPC without considering their case for promotion to the super time scale, and to grant retrospective effect to promotions with consequential benefits if found successful. The petitioners were appointed in 1978 under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1976 and promoted to Selection Scale in 1992. They claimed entitlement to back year seniority and year of allotment 1976 as per Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976, which was not granted by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners did not object to the provisional seniority list published in 1981 or the final seniority list published in 1983, which did not assign them back year seniority. The petitioners had slept over the matter for 15 years and did not assail the final seniority list even after the decision in S.P. Rai's case, which directed the State Government to consider the claim of back year seniority of similarly situated officers. The court held that the rights inter se of the persons placed above the petitioners in the final seniority list had crystallised and the petitioners could not be permitted to reopen the matter after inordinate delay.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to back year seniority and year of allotment 1976 as per Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1976? 2. Whether the petitioners' delay in filing the writ petition and failure to assail the final seniority list published in 1983 barred their claim?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1976 provides a formula for determining the seniority of officers appointed under the rules. The petitioners were not assigned back year seniority in the final seniority list published in 1983, and they did not challenge the list at that time. 2. The court held that the petitioners' delay of 15 years in filing the writ petition and their failure to assail the final seniority list published in 1983 constituted laches and barred their claim. The court relied on the principle that in service matters, the question of seniority should not be reopened after a reasonable period, as it disturbs the settled position and affects the rights of others.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

1. - Matter was finally heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners, who are the officers in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, have sought following reliefs in the instant writ petition-

(i) to direct the respondents to hold the meeting of the D.P.C. of the petitioners for filling up the vacancies of the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 at the earliest and in any case before the D.P.C. is held for the vacancy of the 1976 batch direct recruits for the years 1998-99;

(ii) to strike down the action of the respondents in not holding the D.P.C. for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 without considering the case of the petitioners for the purpose of promotions to the super time scale and declare the same as illegal and void;

(iii) to direct the respondents that in case the petitioners are found successful for purposes of promotion to super time scale either for the year 1996-97 or 1997-98 the benefit of promotion be given with retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits in regard to their seniority, salary and perks.

3. The contextual facts depict that the petitioners had been appointed in the year 1978 after having been found successful under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment)Rules 1976 (for short the 'Emergency Rules of 1976'). The petitioners were given promotion from Junior Scale to Senior Scale and further to Selection Scale. The petitioners had been promoted to selection scale in the year 1992 as under-

C.R. Chaudhary

Feb. 1992

B.M. Sharma

August 1992

A.R. Pathan

Feb. 1992.

Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976 provides the criteria for fixing the seniority in regard to the recruitee officers thus-

"25. Seniority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 seniority of persons appointed to the Service under these rules shall be on the basis of a notional year of Allotment determined as follows :
Year of Allotment=1976 (N 1+Half of N 2), where-

N 1 means : completed years, including broken periods, after the age 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976, with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to at least र 625/-.

N 2 means : completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to less than र 625/-.

(2) After assignment of years of Allotment under sub-rule (1), a person shall be placed in the list of Rajasthan Administrative Service Officers immediately below the junior most Rajasthan Administrative Service Officer appointed by direct recruitment in that year.

(3) Among persons appointed to the grade under these rules who are assigned the same year of Allotment, inter se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.
Vide notification dated December 15, 1976, Rule 25 was amended thus-

"the expression "year of allotment- 1976" and the expression "1976" wherever occurring in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 shall be substituted by the expressions 'year of allotment- 1997' and the expression "1977" respectively."

4. The petitioners averred in the petition that explanation as provided for N 1 and N 2 were not applicable in the cases of the petitioners therefore notional year of allotment for them was the basic year, namely, 1976 (after amendment 1977). The petitioners, who were promoted to Selection Scale in Feb. and August 1992 completed three years of service in Selection Scale if not on April, 1995, then in any case on April 1, 1996. Likewise they have also completed a minimum service of 20 years for the purposes of promotion to super time scale as contained in Rule 32(3) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 (for short the Rules of 1954). Rule 32(3) of the Rules of 1954 provides thus-

"(3) No member of the Service who has not completed 3 years service on the selection scale posts and 20 years service in all on the posts included in the S















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top