The work of Cashier can be considered as part of Accounts work for the purpose of determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Jr. Accountant under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963, as clarified by the State Government.

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition is directed against the recommendation made by the respondent-Municipal Council in its meeting dated 16.09.2013 (Annex.-14), recommending the name of the respondent No.6 for promotion on the post of Jr. Accountant and seeking direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Jr. Accountant with all consequential benefits.

2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Nakedar on compassionate ground in Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh on 20.07.1985. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Nakedar and after abolition of post of Nakedar, the petitioner was absorbed on the post of L.D.C. by order dated 28.08.2002. In the year 2006, the petitioner was directed to work in the Account Department, wherein he has been working since then. Based on the recommendation made by the Department Promotion Committee ('DPC') by order dated 21.12.2010, the petitioner was promoted on the post of U.D.C. w.e.f. 01.04.2006. It is claimed that during the course of time, the petitioner was directed to work as Accountant and was further given additional charge on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The petitioner having fulfilled eligibility for promotion to the post of Jr. Accountant, made an application in this regard for promotion, wherein the eligibility indicated for the post of Jr. Accountant is 5 years' experience on the post of U.D.C. working as an Accountant. The DPC also recommended the name of the petitioner vide Annex.-11, however, vide order dated 17.09.2013 (Annex.- 14), the Promotion Committee of the Municipal Council, ordered for promotion of respondent No.6 as Jr. Accountant by indicating that he was working as UDC since 31.08.2005 and was working in the Cash Section and for the petitioner, he was directed to be promoted as Office Assistant.

3. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.6 is neither eligible nor he was interested in getting promoted on the post of Jr. Accountant, inasmuch as, he himself made an application (Annex.-15) for promotion on the post of Office Assistant and the recommendation also was made for such promotion.

4. Submissions have been made that the requirement under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 ('Rules of 1963') is having experience of working as Accountant and as admittedly the respondent No.6 has only worked as Cashier, he cannot be termed as eligible for the promotion to the post of Jr. Accountant and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that it is not in dispute that the respondent No.6 has been working in the position of a Cashier only and working as Cashier cannot be equated with the eligibility of having work as an 'Accountant' as the two are totally separate positions and, consequently, the promotion of the respondent No.6 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel made reference to the General Financial and Accounts Rules of Govt. of Rajasthan to indicate that the position of Accountants are totally different from the position/duties of Cashier and, therefore, the use of qualification Accountant in the Rules has to be read in the said context and a Cashier cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as an Accountant and, consequently, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the respondent No.6 is possessing requisite experience and qualification for the post of Jr. Accountant and he is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of U.D.C. and, therefore, he has rightly been promoted on the post of Jr. Accountant and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. Lear