The court established that administrative lapses in conducting promotions must not prejudice employees' rights, and adherence to reservation limits is mandatory.

ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.) :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the both the sides, and looking to the urgency voiced by the petitioners, the instant petition was taken up for final disposal.

2. The petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, as reproduced herein-under:-

“(i) to direct Respondent No.3 to conduct Review DPC in pursuance of circular dated 26.07.2022 for the vacancies of year 2022-23 and subsequent clarification thereof and consequently, promote the petitioners to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (E & M) against the vacancies for the year 2022-23;

(ii) to quash and set aside order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure-11) to the extent of promotion of Respondent No.4 passed by Respondent No.3;

(iii) to issue any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioners;

(iv) to allow the cost of the writ petition in favour of the Petitioners.”

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Karan Tibrewal, submitted that the instant petition is filed being aggrieved of the inaction on part of the respondents in respect of the conduct of Review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter, Review DPC) for the Year 2022-2023, as a result of which, the petitioners were not considered for promotion on the post of Additional Chief Engineer for the said year; and further, aggrieved of the fact that against the post earmarked for the unreserved category, candidates belonging to the reserved category have been considered and promoted for the post of Chief Engineer for the Year 2023-2024, which has resulted into hostile discrimination against the petitioners, inadvertently violating their fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are employees of the respondent no.3 i.e. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., who have ever since their appointment, continued to discharge their services diligently and to the utmost satisfaction of their peers and superiors. At present, the petitioners hold the post of Additional Chief Engineer (E & M).

5. In this background, Mr. Tibrewal argued that the subject of reservation and promotion of employees of the State is settled by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, wherein the concept of post-based reservation was introduced as opposed to vacancy-based reservation of backward classes. Accordingly, in adherence of the said dictum, the respondents issued Circular dt. 20.11.1997 prescribing the rules for reservation in direct recruitment as well as promotion in Rajasthan. In the said Circular, a 100 point roster system was introduced prescribing reservation in direct recruitment for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes(OBC). Further, for the cadre strength from 2 to 8, a separate 8 point roster (L Shaped Roster) was prescribed for direct recruitment. At this juncture, learned counsel argued that at any stage, the reservation could not exceed the limit of 50%, as stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Sawney vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 477.

6. In furtherance of the aforesaid, learned counsel apprised the Court that from time to time, the respondents continued to issue Circulars and clarifications thereof, delineating the settled position of law on the aspect of reservation and promotion. Moreover, respondent no.3 even promulgated the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Engineers Service Regulations 2016 (hereinafter, Regulations of 2016), for the regulation of recruitment, promotion and seniority and other conditions of service of persons appointed with the respondent no.3, which as a consequence, are also applicable upon the petitioners before this Court.

7. One of su