IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Pavan Kumar Joshi, S/o. Shri Jagdish Chandra Joshi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18871 Of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 Of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18887 Of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18900 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization), Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 - Settlement and Colonization - Commencement and Application - While petitioner was performing duties of Patwari he was granted - upgradation of pay scale on completion of nine years of service - After grant of first ACP petitioner was entitled for grant of second ACP on completion of years of service in year - While undertaking exercise for grant of promotion to petitioner, since amended Rules had come into force and promoted post of Patwari is Senior Patwari, respondents had rightly promoted petitioner on post of Senior Patwari.
Finding of Court:
While undertaking exercise for grant of promotion to petitioner since amended Rules had come into force and promoted post of Patwari is Senior respondents had rightly promoted petitioner on post of Senior Patwari - It is a settled law that Rules in existence of consideration for promotion shall be applicable in promotional exercise undertaken by the department - In present case petitioner cannot be granted promotion directly on post of Inspector Land Records.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promoting him on the post of Inspector Land Records.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioner having cleared Patwar Competitive Examination, 1999 was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 22/04/2003. While the petitioner was performing the duties of Patwari, he was granted the upgradation of the pay scale on completion of nine years of service. After grant of first ACP, the petitioner was entitled for the grant of second ACP on completion of 18 years of service in the year 2019. However, grant of second ACP was deferred on account that petitioner having fathered a third child. The second ACP was actually granted to the petitioner on 14/05/2022. Since the petitioner’s case was ripped for promotion, the respondents considered his case for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari. The petitioner was also promoted on the post of Senior Patwari vide order dated 30/08/2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since at the time of incurring ineligibility for the grant of second ACP on account of having fathered third child, there was no post of Senior Patwari, thus, the case of the petitioner should have been considered for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. He further submits that during the currency of the deferment period, a person junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Inspector Land Records. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records instead of Senior Patwari.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that by virtue of notification dated 21/10/2021, Schedule-1 of the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization), Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 was amended and a promotion post of Senior Patwari was introduced between the post of Patwari and Inspector Land Records. Learned counsel submits that the date on which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, a post of Senior Patwari was in existence as per the Rules and, therefore, the respondents were correct in giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Patwari. He submits that the case of the petitioner was not ripped for promotion in the year 2019 and there was no question of giving promotion or considering his case for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. He submits that during the currency of the deferment period, the case of the person who was junior to the petitioner was ripped for consideration and, therefore, the Rules existing on that particular date were taken into consideration for the grant of promotion and since there was no post of Senior Patwari, case of person junior to petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the department. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
7. Admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner after being appointed on the post of Patwari was granted first ACP in the year 2010 and when the case of grant of second ACP was due after completion of 18 years i.e. in the year 2019, the petitioner incurred a disqualification in view of the notification of the State Government dated 01/06/2017 for deferment of the same for a period of three years and, therefore, the ACP of the petitioner was deferred for a period of three years and was ultimately granted vide order dated 14/05/2022. During the course of deferment of the promotion and grant of ACP to the petitioner for three years, Rules of 2019 were amended and a new post of Senior Patwari was added in the hierarchy of the posts. The date on
SupremeToday
It is a settled law that the Rules in existence on the date of consideration for promotion shall be applicable in the promotional exercise undertaken by the department.
The main legal point established is that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of seniority and promotion based on their merit and the previous court directions, and denying them promotion wou....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of seniority rules, the nature of recruitment, and the validity of the seniority list revision under the Land Revenue Act and re....
Principle of accelerated/jump up seniority would not be applicable and petitioner was required to be considered as per seniority list of Inspectors for induction into H.P.P. Services.
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.