Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.
Shri Narendra Sankhla - Appellant
Versus
In The High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5996 of 2020
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Cadre - Change of Cadre - Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the discretion of the Chief Justice to absorb technical staff into junior judicial assistant positions, emphasizing the lack of a vested right for retrospective absorption.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to change his cadre from Liftman to Junior Judicial Assistant, challenging previous rejections of his requests and arguing for retrospective effect based on earlier representations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chief Justice had discretion under the Rules to absorb technical staff and that the petitioner’s earlier requests were properly declined due to lack of available vacancies and the discretionary nature of the absorption process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a legal right to claim absorption as Junior Judicial Assistant with retrospective effect and whether the previous rejections of his requests were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion of the Chief Justice in determining absorption from technical staff is not subject to a claim of right by the petitioner, and the theory of 'relate back' does not apply in this context.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by making following prayers:-
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to change cadre of Technical staff Lift Operator to that of Junior Judicial Assistant from earlier dates i.e. from the date of publication of the order dated December 5,2002 or from the date when he was confirmed to the post of Liftmen (Lift Operator) on 8.7.2004 and the order allowing change of cadre may be revised and the date of order promoting the petitioner to the post of Judicial Assistant may also be revised.
2. The petition was initially filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to change his cadre of Technical Staff Lift Operator to Junior Judicial Assistant from earlier dates. The petitioner amended his writ petition and as such, the earlier order passed by the respondents, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, has been put to challenge.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.Daksh Pareek submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Liftman by an order dated 09.07.1996 and the petitioner came to be confirmed on the post of Liftman by an order dated 08.07.2004.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before confirmation of the petitioner, he had submitted his representation for change of his cadre by submitting an application and such representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by an order dated 04.09.2003.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner again submitted an application for change of his cadre on 20.08.2004 and the same representation was again rejected by the respondents by an order dated 02.09.2004 and further the petitioner was asked to desist from writing again and again in respect of change of his cadre from Liftman to Junior Judicial Assistant.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner again submitted an application for change of his cadre by submitting representation dated 26.08.2013 and the representation was again rejected by an order dated 29.08.2014.
7. Learned counsel submitted that a joint representation was submitted by the petitioner alongwith other persons and as such, the petitioner was asked to file a separate representation for change of his cadre and on such demand being made by the respondents to file a separate representation, the petitioner filed his separate representation dated 08.12.2015.
8. Learned counsel submitted that by an order dated 13.04.2016 representation of the petitioner was considered in a positive manner and as such, the respondents allowed the petitioner to change his cadre from the post of Liftman Operator to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant against the vacancies of 15% quota of Technical Staff in the cadre of Junior Judicial Assistant as per the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereafter 'the Rules of 2002').
9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner came to be further promoted on the post of Judicial Assistant in pay matrix L-8 by an order dated 27.04.2018.
10. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner after his confirmation had served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents to change his cadre from the post of Liftman Operator to that of Junior Judicial Assistant with retrospective effect and to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel submitted that when no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner, he has approached this Court.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Daksh Pareek has made following submissions:-
The court established that the discretion of the Chief Justice in cadre changes is not a matter of right and cannot be claimed retrospectively by employees.
The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
Preamended Recruitment Rules there was no prescription as regards the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Director.
Merit-based promotions take effect from the date of the promotion order, not the date of vacancy, as retrospective promotions are not justified.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
The court established that the right to promotion is determined by the rules in force at the time of consideration, and the Service Rules of 2020 do not permit promotion from Grade-IV to Junior Assis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effective date of permanent absorption is determined by the Cabinet approval, and the petitioner's claim for seniority from an earlier dat....
Assurances made by public authorities regarding employment must be honored, and failure to do so can lead to legal consequences.
The court ruled that a seniority condition in the appointment of a Court Officer does not prevent the incumbent's eligibility for promotion to a higher cadre, emphasizing that merit should prevail in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
