1985 Supreme(Raj) 437
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.
Yashwant Gauri Shanker Trivedi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and ors. - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. No. 1475 of 1974.
Decided On : 22-04-1985
A seniority list cannot be altered to show a junior officer as senior to a senior officer without affording the senior officer an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:
SENIORITI LIST - RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES - RULE 16 - Seniority list published in 1971 showing petitioner junior to non-petitioner quashed - Petitioner held entitled to be treated as senior to non-petitioner and to be considered for promotion accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, appointed as Food Assistant in 1950, was selected as Agricultural Extension Officer in 1952 and confirmed in 1959. He was later appointed as District Agricultural Officer and then as Assistant Conservation Officer. In 1972, he was posted as Lecturer in Gram Sewak Training Centre and later as Agricultural Information Officer. A seniority list published in 1968 showed petitioner at No. 21, while another list published in 1971 showed him at No. 56 and non-petitioner Shri G.S. Sonkhiya at No. 51. Petitioner challenged the 1971 list, claiming that he was senior to Shri Sonkhiya. The non-petitioners were promoted to the post of Dy. Director in preference to the petitioner, prompting him to file a writ petition seeking to quash the promotion order and the 1971 seniority list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was senior to Shri G.S. Sonkhiya and that the 1971 seniority list could not be altered to show otherwise. It held that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before being shown junior to Shri Sonkhiya and that the State Government should consider the petitioner's case for promotion as if he was senior to Shri Sonkhiya.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the 1971 seniority list in 1974, considering that he had retired from service. 2. Whether the petitioner was senior to Shri G.S. Sonkhiya and entitled to be treated as such for the purpose of promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the 1971 seniority list was not barred by delay, as the objections to the list were still under consideration by the Government in 1974. 2. The court found that the petitioner was senior to Shri G.S. Sonkhiya based on their respective dates of entry into service and selection as Agricultural Extension Officer. It held that the petitioner should have been shown senior to Shri Sonkhiya in the 1971 seniority list.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the 1971 seniority list insofar as it showed Shri Sonkhiya senior to the petitioner. It directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as if he was senior to Shri Sonkhiya and to grant him notional promotion from the date Shri Sonkhiya was promoted, with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. :- The petitioner was initially appointed as Food Assistant in Agricultural department vide order dated 22-7-1950 in the grade of 100-5-115-10-200. The petitioner thereafter was selected on the post of Food Assistant by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1952 and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1-7-1959. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer. Later on he was appointed as District Agricultural Officer in the pay scale of 200-600 which was revised to 285-800. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Conservation Officer, which is an equivalent post to that of District Agricultural Officer, in 1965. He was posted as a Lecturer in Gram Sewak Training Centre in the year 1972. He was posted as Agricultural Information Officer. The petitioner has thus claimed that he was senior to the non-petitioners. The seniority list was published vide Annexure 5 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 1-2-1968 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with decision of Government of India under the provision of Section 115(2) of the State of Reorganisation Act, in 1955. In this seniority list of Agricultural Extension Officer, Agricultural Officer, Food Assistant, the petitioner Shri G.L. Sonkhiya was shown at No. 21. Another seniority list was published in the year 1971 wherein the petitioner was shown at serial No. 56 and Shri G.S. Sonkhiya was shown at No. 51. Several representations were submitted against this seniority list issued in the year 1971 and the matter was pending before the Government as it is evident from Annx, 8 letter dated 15-6-1974 of Deputy Secretary Agricultural Dapartment Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur wherein it has been mentioned that during the discussion held in the chamber of the Agricultural Minister on 12/13-6-1974, the Agricultural Minister desired that the representation against seniority should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The non-petitioners were promoted on the post of Dy. Director in preference to the petitioner and, therefore, the present writ petition was filed on 10-6-1974 seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25-5-1974 promoting non-petitioners Shri Saxena, Shri Raina and Shri Sonkhiya on the post of Dy. Director and it was further prayed that seniority list dated 22-4-1971 so far as it relates to the position of non-petitioners vis-a-vis the petitioner should be quashed. It was also prayed that no further promotions should be made in pursuance of the seniority list dated 22-4-1971. The writ petition was admitted by this court on 13-6-1974 and it was ordered that since the non-petitioners No. 7 to 9 (in original writ petition) have already joined as Deputy Directors of Agriculture, the stay application has become infructuous and further directed that the State shall not promote any of other non-petitioners as Deputy Director without considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. The writ petition was amended and latest amended writ petition was filed on 16-4-1980. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners have not filed any reply to the writ petition.
2. A reply was filed by non-petitioner No. 3 Shri V.P. Mathur to the stay application. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner for the State submitted that he has already filed reply to the stay application as well as the writ petition but that is not on record. Learned counsel for non-petitioner has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed as it has become in-fructous in as much the petitioner as well as most of non-petitioners have already retired from service. More over the petitioner is also guilty of laches as he could not be allowed to challenge the seniority list of 1971 in the year 1974. It has further been submitted that serveral orders have been passed and they have not been challenged nor other officers have been made party, therefore, this writ petition co
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
