IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Dharmender Prasad Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17089 of 2021
Decided on : 30-03-2022
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Rajasthan Various Services (Second Amendment) Rules, 2021 - Rule 1(2) - Provision inserted is not retrospective - Rule 9 - Deals with determination of vacancies provides that appointing authority - Rule 28A(11) - Vacancies relating to any earlier year are determined under these rules which were required to be filled by promotion - Rule 32 – Merit and seniority-cum-merit - Power of High Court to issue certain writs - Held, Similarly, in case of Gajendra Singh (supra), Division Bench of this Court after referring to judgment in case of (supra), came to conclusion that minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in relief column should be taken into consideration against vacancies exists as on 1st April of year of selection and that vacancies, which occurred prior to amendment of Rules, would be governed by original Rules and not by amended Rules – Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to determine the vacancies on the post of Selection Scale in the respondent – Department as on 01.04.2021, considering the petitioners for conferment of promotion on the post of Selection Scale from the post of Senior Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2021, take into account the posts for consideration of promotion in the cadre of Selection Scale, which became vacant by virtue of promotions made on 3.11.2021 and grant promotion to the petitioners on the post of Selection Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2021 with consequential benefits.
2. The petitioners, who are officers of Rajasthan Police Service, were selected by orders dated 10.8.2011 and 11.8.2011 and accorded postings as Additional Superintendent of Police (Junior Scale).
3. It is inter alia indicated that channel of promotion under the Rajasthan Police Service is governed by the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 (‘the Rules’), wherein, appointment to senior posts i.e. Senior Scale, Selection Scale and Supertime Scale are made in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit.
4. The petitioners were accorded promotion on the post of Senior Scale by orders dated 31.7.2018 and 12.12.2018 against vacancies of the year 2018-19 w.e.f. 1.4.2018. It is then contended that respondents issued seniority list on 4.6.2021 as on 1.4.2021 (Annex.6). The said seniority list was followed by order dated 29.7.2021 (Annex.7), wherein, 125 posts were determined in the cadre of Selection Scale.
5. On 15.9.2021, a notification under the Rajasthan Various Service Rules (Second Amendment) Rules, 2021 was notified inter alia amending the Rules and providing that ‘no member of service, who has been appointed on Senior Scale post and not completed 10 years service in all as a member of service, shall not be eligible for appointment on the Selection Scale post’.
6. The respondents whereafter issued orders of promotion on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) for conferring promotion to Supertime Scale to the persons working on the post of Selection Scale against the vacancies of the year 2021-22 on seniority-cum-merit basis and simultaneously, issued order whereby persons working on the post of Senior Scale were conferred promotion on the post of Selection Scale against the vacancies of the year 2021-22 on seniority-cum-merit basis (Annex. 10 and 11 respectively).
7. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the promotions from Selection Scale to Supertime Scale have been conferred w.e.f. 01.04.2021, based on determination of vacancies under Rule 9 of the Rules i.e. as on 1st April of the year. It is then contended that as by order dated 03.11.2021 (Annex.10) as many as 23 promotions were made from Selection Scale to Supertime Scale, wherein, 20 posts were in general category, the said posts became vacant in Selection Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
8. It is submitted that petitioners being eligible were awaiting their promotions on the post of Selection Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2021, however, the same were not conferred on the petitioners indicating that only those candidates, who had completed at least 10 years’ service in all as a member of service in terms of amendment dated 15.9.2021 (Annex.9), were eligible and as the petitioners had not completed 10 years in service as on 01.04.2021, they were not eligible.
9. It is contended that the notification dated 15.9.2021 (Annex.9) cannot subvert the right of the petitioners for consideration for promotion as on 01.04.2021 by giving retrospective effect to the notification.
10. Submissions were made with reference to provisions of Rule 28A(11) of the Rules that the DPC was required to consider the cases of all the eligible and qualified senior most persons for promotion equal to the number of vacancies determined under the Rules and as the vacancies relating to 2021-22 were determined, and as the same were required
State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal & Ors.: (1997)10 SCC 419
Shanker Lal Verma & Ors. v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board: (1999) 1 WLC 1
SupremeToday
The right to consideration for promotion is governed by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not those in place when vacancies arose.
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Promotions in the police service must follow year-wise vacancy determinations, and changes in seniority require due process and adherence to established rules.
Eligible junior's vested right to promotion precedes seniors' conditional consideration under relaxatory note in recruitment rules.
Delayed DPC cannot deprive retired employee of notional promotion if found 'FIT' for earlier vacancies per DoPT guidelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions should be based on the date the DPC considered the vacancy for filling up, rather than the date the vacancy arose. The court also e....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.