1999 Supreme(Raj) 1280
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ashok Parihar, J.
Pratap Singh Soni - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1733 of 1990.
Decided On : 28-07-1999
A person appointed after due process of selection in accordance with the provisions of the Rules should be treated as a substantive appointee, and even a substantive appointment on a temporary basis should be considered for the purpose of seniority while considering the case of an employee under the Rules of 1969.
Headnote:
SENIORITIY - ABSORPTION OF SURPLUS PERSONNEL - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (ABSORPTION OF SURPLUS PERSONNEL) RULES, 1969 - RULE 15(1) - REGULAR APPOINTMENT AFTER DUE SELECTION BY RPSC - SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT - ENTITLEMENT TO SENIORITY FROM DATE OF REGULAR APPOINTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was initially appointed as Refrigeration Mechanic in the Animal Husbandry Department on a temporary basis in 1969. Later, he was given regular appointment on the post of Refrigeration Mechanic in 1973 after due selection by the RPSC. The factory where he was posted was transferred to Sheep & Wool Marketing Federation along with its staff. Petitioner did not opt for the services of the Federation and was sent back to the Animal Husbandry Department. He was declared surplus and directed to report to the General Administrative Department (GAD) for absorption in another department. GAD sent him to the Transport Department to be absorbed as Transport Inspector, a lower grade than Refrigeration Mechanic. Petitioner challenged the seniority list issued by the Transport Department, which placed him at No. 63, arguing that he should have been shown as the junior most permanent employee as per rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (Rules of 1969).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was given regular appointment as Refrigeration Mechanic in the Animal Husbandry Department after due selection by the RPSC, which should be treated as a substantive appointment. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to seniority on the post of Transport Inspector in the Transport Department as per the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969, treating his appointment as substantive in the Animal Husbandry Department from the date of regular appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment as Refrigeration Mechanic was substantive or temporary. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority on the post of Transport Inspector in the Transport Department as per the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's appointment as Refrigeration Mechanic was substantive as it was made after due selection by the RPSC in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to seniority on the post of Transport Inspector in the Transport Department as per the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969, treating his appointment as substantive in the Animal Husbandry Department from the date of regular appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, and directed the respondent to revise the seniority list dated 20.7.1983 on the post of Transport Inspector in accordance with the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969, treating the petitioner's appointment as substantive in the Animal Husbandry Department from the date of regular appointment.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner was initially appointed as Refrigeration Mechanic in the Animal Husbandry Department on temporary basis on 19.6.1969. The temporary appointment was extended from time to time with concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner was given regular appointment on the post of Refrigeration Mechanic vide order dated 6.11.1973 after due selection by the RPSC and was posted at Government Becan Factory, Alwar.
2. The above factory subsequently came to be transferred to Sheep & Wool Marketing Federation along with its staff and all other assets vide order dated 26.3.1979. The staff was to be sent on deputation with the Federation.
3. The staff of the factory so transferred to the above Federation were required to give their option for the services of the Federation or to be sent back to the department. Since the petitioner did not opt for the services of the Federation, he was sent back to the Animal Husbandry Department. After being declared surplus from the Animal Husbandry Department vide order dated 15.9.1979, the petitioner was directed to report to General Administrative Department for absorption in some other department.
4. The absorption committee of the GAD, on consideration of the matter, sent the petitioner to Transport Department to be absorbed as Transport Inspector. Though the grade of Transport Inspector was lower than that of Refrigeration Mechanic, the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 10.1.1980, joined as Transport Inspector on 11.1.1980 in the Transport Department.
5. Subsequently, provisional seniority list of Transport Inspectors was issued vide order dated 27.1.1983. The name of the petitioner was placed at No. 63. The petitioner submitted his objection. In representation he contended that the seniority should have been assigned in accordance with the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (for short "the Rules of 1969") and he should have been shown junior most permanent employee in the Transport Department as Transport Inspector, whereas, in the provisional seniority list his seniority has been fixed from the date of his absorption. The final seniority list was also published on 20.7.1983 with no change in the status of the petitioner so far as seniority is concerned.
6. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur challenging the final seniority list dated 20.7.1983. The Tribunal, vide order dated 19.9.1988, while partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner, held that the petitioner is entitled to be given seniority amongst the Transport Inspectors of the Transport Department in accordance with rule 15(2)(a) of the Rules of 1969 and the respondents were directed to revise the seniority of the petitioner as per the directions referred to above. The order dated 19.9.1988 passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition with a prayer for assigning proper seniority to the petitioner as Transport Inspector above the respondents No. 3 to 25 in the seniority list dated 20.9.1983 in accordance with rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969.
7. The only objection taken on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed on probation though after due selection by the RPSC vide order dated 6.11.1973, the confirmation order was never issued by any of the departments and, as such, the petitioner should have been treated as temporary and cannot be given the status of a substantive employee. The benefit of rule 15(1) can only be given to the substantive employees.
8. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned order of the Tribunal and also the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1969.
9. Thee is no dispute that the petitioner was given regular appointment as Refrigeration Mechanic vide order dated 6.11.1973 after due selection b
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
