The court held that the DPC's decision to supersede the petitioner was arbitrary and unreasonable because it was based on minor adverse remarks that did not directly relate to the petitioner's performance as a teacher and because the DPC had failed to consider the petitioner's seniority and merit, as required by the rules governing promotions.

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated-4.2.87 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 491/81, Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another as also order dated, 2.5.81 passed by the Government for promotion of Senior Lecturers, which has resulted in petitioner's supersession.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of the points raised in this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) on 16.11.64 on temporary basis. He was subsequently selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was confirmed as Lecturer (Hindi) w. e. f. 13.68. Departmental Promotion Committee met in April 1981 for consideration of the cases of eligible Lecturers for promotion as Senior Lecturers. On the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee order dated, 2.5.81 was passed by the Government for promotion of 217 Junior Lecturers as Senior Lecturers. A number of persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as Senior Lecturers.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal questioning the legality of his supersession. He alleged that the departmental promotion committee had made recommendations against the vacancies which had become available since 1971 and vacancies of five years had been clubbed and that reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes had also been given effect to ignoring the year-wise vacancies. This had resulted in shrinkage of the number of vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner stated that he had been superseded on account of adverse remarks made in his annual confidential reports for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Adverse entries for the year 1972-73 were expunged on a representation made by the petitioner. Adverse entries for 1973-74 were also expunged by the Government vide communication dated 6.7.76. However, by another letter dated, 7/9.8.76 the petitioner was conveyed that adverse remarks in the APAR of 1973-74 have been expunged only in part. Petitioner pleaded that on the basis of a minor adverse remark which had no nexus with his working as a Lecturer he could not have been superseded. He pleaded that although, he had become eligible for promotion against the vacancies of 1971-72, his candidature had not been considered fairly and properly. He further pleaded that adverse remarks had been made in total disregard of the instructions issued by the Government and, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon by the departmental promotion committee. Respondent No. 1 contested the appeal and asserted that the departmental promotion committee was convened only for the year 1976 and that there was no clubbing of vacancies. Candidature of the petitioner had also been considered but due to adverse remarks he was not found suitable for promotion by the departmental promotion committee.

4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated, 4.2.87 and held that supersession of the petitioner on the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee cannot be termed as illegal. Tribunal rejected the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar case decided on 2.11.82, the Tribunal had declared the supersession of appellant Chandmal as arbitrary and unjustified, therefore, his appeal should also be accepted.

5. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental promotion committee has committed a serious illegality in not recommending the petitioner for promotion as Senior Lecturer and thereby superseding him. He argued that the departmental promotion committee has not fairly considered the candidature of the petitioner and on the basis of a stray remark in the APAR of 1973-74, which does not have any direct relation with the performance of the petitioner as Lecturer, the petitioner has been superseded. he further submitted that the