2022 Supreme(Raj) 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Rajnikant S/o Late Shri Raghuvar Sahai and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8497 & 10057 of 2020, 15192 of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2022

The Rules of 1970 are inapplicable on the Governor Secretariat and the Government has, vide its letter dated 20.12.2012, conveyed to the Governor’s office to frame its own Rules to govern the service conditions of its staff in pursuance whereof, the guidelines were issued for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of LDC vide order dated 29.1.2013 which did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

Headnote:

GOVERNOR SECRETARIAT - SERVICE CONDITIONS - RULES OF 1970 - INAPPLICABILITY - RULES OF 1999 - APPLICABILITY - PROMOTION FROM CLASS-IV TO LDC - RELAXATION IN PROMOTION QUOTA - GUIDELINES ISSUED BY GOVERNOR SECRETARIAT - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - WITHDRAWAL OF PROMOTION - LEGALITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were initially appointed as Class-IV employees in the office of the Governor of Rajasthan and were later on promoted as LDC after being granted relaxation in the reservation quota for promotion. The petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15192/2017 are direct recruitees on the post of LDC and were appointed in the office of the Governor of Rajasthan. The Governor Secretariat issued guidelines for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of LDC in the Raj Bhawan. Vide these Guidelines, promotion quota from Class-IV to LDC was prescribed as 33% of the sanctioned strength subject to fulfilment of the eligibility criteria as prescribed under Clause-2 of the Guidelines. The petitioners were promoted as LDC on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The RPSC invited applications for appointment as LDC through LDC Combined Competitive Examination-2011 under the Rules of 1970 and Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999 for Government Secretariat and RPSC office. The private respondents were recruited in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.5.2011, were allotted, vide order dated 4.1.2013, for appointment in the Governor Secretariat in pursuance whereof, five of them were appointed by the Governor Secretariat as LDC vide order dated 12.3.2013 and rest two were appointed vide order dated 20.3.2013. The final seniority list along with the guidelines issued by the Governor office vide order dated 29.1.2013 is challenged by the direct recruitees in the writ petition no.15192/2017. The Governor Secretariat, vide impugned order dated 30.7.2020, has, reckoning the order dated 29.1.2013 as bad in law, annulled and declared it void with consequences to follow, which would be reversal of the petitioners to Class-IV employees.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Rules of 1970 are inapplicable on the Governor Secretariat and the Government has, vide its letter dated 20.12.2012, conveyed to the Governor’s office to frame its own Rules to govern the service conditions of its staff in pursuance whereof, the guidelines were issued for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of LDC vide order dated 29.1.2013 which did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 2. The guidelines dated 29.1.2013 have been framed by the Governor’s office relying upon the letter of the DoP dated 20.12.2012 whereby, it was conveyed that the Rules of 1970 were inapplicable on the Governor office and it was free to frame its own Rules/guidelines relaxing the promotion quota. This Court is not convinced that the DoP had authority to hold and convey that in absence of applicability of the Rules of 1970, the Governor office was free to frame its own Service Rules or lay down guidelines governing promotion of the Class-IV employees to the post of LDC. 3. The letter dated 20.12.2012 issued by the DoP and the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 issued by the Governor’s office dehors the statutory provisions are void ab initio & non-est. 4. The order dated 30.7.2020 withdrawing the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioners being violative of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in the eye of law, does not merit acceptance in view of finding of this Court whereby, the basis of promotion of the petitioners, the promotee-employees, i.e., the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 have been held to be void ab initio & non-est.

Issues: 1. Whether the Rules of 1970 or the Rules of 1999 are applicable to the Governor's Secretariat? 2. Whether the Governor's Secretariat is a subordinate office or not? 3. Whether the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 issued by the Governor's Secretariat are valid? 4. Whether the order dated 30.7.2020 withdrawing the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Rules of 1970 are inapplicable on the Governor Secretariat and the Government has, vide its letter dated 20.12.2012, conveyed to the Governor’s office to frame its own Rules to govern the service conditions of its staff in pursuance whereof, the guidelines were issued for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of LDC vide order dated 29.1.2013 which did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 2. The guidelines dated 29.1.2013 have been framed by the Governor’s office relying upon the letter of the DoP dated 20.12.2012 whereby, it was conveyed that the Rules of 1970 were inapplicable on the Governor office and it was free to frame its own Rules/guidelines relaxing the promotion quota. This Court is not convinced that the DoP had authority to hold and convey that in absence of applicability of the Rules of 1970, the Governor office was free to frame its own Service Rules or lay down guidelines governing promotion of the Class-IV employees to the post of LDC. 3. The letter dated 20.12.2012 issued by the DoP and the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 issued by the Governor’s office dehors the statutory provisions are void ab initio & non-est. 4. The order dated 30.7.2020 withdrawing the benefit of promotion granted to the petitioners being violative of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in the eye of law, does not merit acceptance in view of finding of this Court whereby, the basis of promotion of the petitioners, the promotee-employees, i.e., the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 have been held to be void ab initio & non-est.

Final Decision: 1) the order dated 20.12.2012 and the guidelines dated 29.1.2013 are quashed and set aside; 2) the order dated 30.7.2020 is upheld; 3) promotion of the petitioners (promotee employees) on the post of Clerk Gr.I vide order dated 16.1.2019, which was subject to decision of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15192/2017, is quashed and set aside. However, the salary, other emoluments or any other monetary benefit already paid and received by such petitioners shall not be recoverable; 4) the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8497/2020 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10057/2020 shall continue as LDC; but, shall be placed in seniority list of LDC below the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15192/2017 and shall be entitled for further promotion as and when their turn comes as per their seniority.