1988 Supreme(Raj) 560
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, P.C.Jain, JJ.
C.L. Shivi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427 of 1988.
Decided On : 12-05-1988
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G. S. Singhvi, Advocate.
For the State :Mr. M. I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General.
A candidate who is promoted against a promotion quota is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post in the DPC for the year in which he completes the required service experience.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - RAJASTHAN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY SERVICE RULES, 1963 - RULE 23A(9A) - RULE 26 - SENIORITY LIST - RESERVE LIST - APPOINTMENT - CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULED CASTE CANDIDATE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was promoted to the post of Fisheries Development Officer in 1987. He was later posted as Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Development Agency, Alwar, but the posting was canceled. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his posting and seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Director or equivalent post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director or equivalent post in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the year 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The court directed the respondents to determine year-wise vacancies and hold the DPC as soon as possible, but in no case later than three months. The court also directed that the petitioner's case be considered by the DPC in accordance with the roster system and the rules for promotion.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director or equivalent post in the DPC for the year 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. 2. Whether the respondents were required to hold the DPC as soon as possible, but in no case later than three months.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 23A(9A) of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 provides that a candidate who is promoted against a promotion quota shall be deemed to have completed the required service experience from the date of his promotion. 2. Rule 26 of the Rules provides for urgent temporary appointments to vacancies that cannot be filled immediately by direct recruitment or promotion. Such appointments cannot continue beyond one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence. 3. The purpose of a reserve list is to fill temporary or permanent vacancies that may occur subsequently. There is no logic or sense in preparing a reserve list if the DPC is held for a back year.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to determine year-wise vacancies and hold the DPC as soon as possible, but in no case later than three months. The court also directed that the petitioner's case be considered by the DPC in accordance with the roster system and the rules for promotion.
JUDGMENT
1. 1. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste being Jatav by caste and he entered the Government service in the year 1970 on being appointed as Fisheries Inspector. It may be stated that the post of Fisheries Inspector is a subordinate service post and at the relevant time there were no subordinate service rules for the Fisheries Department and the recruitment and conditions of Services of Fisheries Inspectors were being governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1960. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Assistant Fisheries Development Officer in the year 1973 and that post was also subordinate post. Later on he was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Fisheries Development Officer in the year 1975. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Fisheries Development Officer but had to he reverted back to the substantive post of Assistant Fisheries Development Officer in 1981 in pursuance of some order of the Tribunal which was rendered sometime in 1981. Some how, he was again posted as Fisheries Development Officer on August 2, 1983. He was then promoted as Fisheries Development Officer against the promotion quota of the year 1981 under order dated February 11,1987 (Annr. 1). He was fixed in the pay scale for the post of' Fisheries Development Officer vide order dated April 4, 1987.
2. A seniority list was issued on April 23, 1986 showing the position of Fisheries Development Officers as on December 1, 1985 (Annr. 2). It contains the names of 10 persons and the persons mentioned in the seniority list Annr. 2 upto S. No. 7 i. e R. S. Chaudhary. had already been promoted as Asstt. Director and/or equivalent posts which are included in the category of Junior Grade I post in the Fisheries Section under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules).
3. The case of the petitioner is that since he was promoted against promotion quota of 1981-82 by virtue of Rule 23A (9A) the petitioner is entitled to have his services/experience counted from April 1, 1981 and he would be deemed to have completed 5 years service on March 31, 1986. By an order dated September 17,1987 the petitioner came to be assigned the promotional post of Junior Grade I alongwith three other persons namely Sarvashri N K., Madhawan, D.N. Singh and M.L. Agrawal. When the petitioner reported himself at Alwar to join the post of Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Development Agency, he was told by Shri M K. Saxena. Fisheries Development Officer who was holding charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Development Agency, Alwar that the petitioner's posting on the higher post has been cancelled. According to the petitioner he filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2487/87 and on September 23, 1987 a show cause notice was issued as to why the petition he not admitted and at the same time on the stay application an order was made staying the operation of order dated September 19, 1987. In reply to that writ petition the respondents came out with the case that there were four vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Director and regular promotions could be made only after holding Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for the post of Deputy Director as well as Assistant Director and equivalent posts and that active steps were being taken for holding the Departmental Promotion Committee at the earliest and for that reason the Government had resorted to working arrangements. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on December 15, 1987. This Court had directed that while making appointment under Rule 26 of the Rules, reservation system shall be kept in mind by the authority concerned. According to the petitioner efforts were made to undo the decision and an order dated February 5, 1988 was made and the petitioner was posted as Field
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
