IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Satish Kumar, S/o. Shri Samay Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15692 of 2023 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16147 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17604 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17623 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17624 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17627 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17628 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17629 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17632 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17633 of 2023
Decided On : 30-08-2024
Promotion - Executive Engineer - Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Services Rules 1973, Rajasthan Engineering (Building and Road Branch) Service Rules 1954 - The court interpreted the rules regarding promotion and experience calculation, concluding that the experience for promotion should be counted from the vacancy year rather than the actual promotion date.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the promotion eligibility of private respondents to the post of Executive Engineer based on their experience as Assistant Engineers, with disputes over the correct date for calculating this experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private respondents were entitled to have their experience counted from the vacancy year of 2008-2009, as per the relevant rules and guidelines, thus fulfilling the requirement for promotion.
Issues: Whether the private respondents are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer based on their experience as Assistant Engineers, specifically regarding the correct date for counting this experience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that experience for promotion should be calculated from the vacancy year rather than the actual date of promotion, aligning with the provisions of the applicable rules.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised to the determination of the private-respondent’s experience for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer, as ascertained vide order impugned dated 22.09.2023, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.
2. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, the petitions are co-jointly taken up for final disposal, by way of a common order. It is clarified that for the purpose of recording arguments, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15692/2023 titled as Satish Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., is taken as the lead file.
3. At the outset, Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the order impugned dated 22.09.2023, is passed not only in blatant violation of the settled position of the law, but also the statutory rules governing the facet of appointment and promotion of employees, more specifically Executive Engineers in the State of Rajasthan.
4. While asserting that the directions issued vide order impugned dated 22.09.2023 are arbitrary and legally unfounded insofar as they provided for counting the experience/service of the private respondents on the post Assistant Engineers from 01.04.2008 for the purpose of promotion on the post of Executive Engineer, Mr. Mathur submitted as under:-
4.1 That the post of Assistant Engineer, on which the private respondents were rendering their services, was upgraded on 27.05.2008. The promotion of such private respondents on the said post was effectuated on 17.06.2008 only. Therefore, as such, not a single vacancy of Assistant Engineers was available on 01.04.2008 i.e. statutory date ascertained for recording experience/service for promotion.
4.2 That as per Rule 24A of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Services Rules 1973 (hereinafter, Rules of 1973), the calculation of minimum qualification and experience for the purpose of promotion has to ascertained as on 01.04.2023 i.e. first day of the month of April of the year of selection on the post from which the selection is to be made. Therefore, if the experience/service of the private respondents is calculated from the date of creation of their post i.e. 27.05.2008, then in such an eventuality, the private respondents as on 01.04.2023, shall categorically fail to possess the minimum 15 years of experience, as mandated by Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Engineering (Building and Road Branch) Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter, Rules of 1954).
4.3 That the notification dated 23.05.2008, issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by way of which the entry in Schedule I of the Rules of 1954 under the head of ‘Junior Posts’ was substituted, categorically provided that the said notification shall come into force on 23.05.2008 only, thereby having no retrospective application.
4.4 That placing reliance upon the Rules of 1954, more specifically Rule 2(h) defining “service” or “experience”, Rule 23A which provides for the criteria for promotion, Rule 24A which lays down the revised criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion and Rule 26 which defines the required experience for appointment on the post of Executive Engineer for Degree and Diploma Holders, learned Senior Counsel submitted that when there was no clear post available for promotion on 01.04.2008, on account of the upgradation having been only effectuated subsequently i.e. on 23.05.2008, then as per the statutory requirements, the requisite experience of 15 years on the post of Assistant Engineer was not possessed by the private respondents as on 01.04.2023.
4.5. That since the Rules of 1954 are clear and unambiguous, the experience for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer has to be count
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Ors.
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
Ganga Vishan Gujarati and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Experience for promotion must be calculated from the vacancy year, not the actual promotion date, as per the relevant rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requisition for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was sent in compliance with the statutory rules, and the Rules, 1968 p....
Amended promotion rules' 45% quota for Junior Engineers with 7 years service contains no Diploma/Degree requirement; unqualified seniors eligible; DPC rejection on qualification grounds invalid.
Diploma Junior Engineers acquiring AMIE/degree during service eligible for promotion post-3 years; pre-acquisition service not counted for seniority, as they enter graduate quota impacting original g....
Promotions in public service are prospective and take effect from the date duties are assumed, not from earlier dates, emphasizing a distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and t....
Promotion rules proviso deems seniors eligible with minimum three years regular service, placed above junior eligible via combined ad hoc and regular service, barring department from delaying DPC unt....
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.