IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Savita - Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14864 of 2015
Decided On : 27-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion requirements under rules of 1993 (Para 1) |
| 2. legal challenge regarding promotion eligibility (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner's specific legal requests (Para 4) |
| 4. petitioner's argument on notional experience (Para 5) |
| 5. respondents' defense on experience requirement (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. court's analysis of prior litigation and experience (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. clarification on relaxation of promotion rules (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. court's rationale on experience as a criterion for promotion (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 9. conclusion dismissing the petition (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
As per Schedule-I attached to the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations 1993 (for short 'Rules of 1993"), for getting promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer from the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, Five years service for Degree holders and Ten years service for Diploma holders, is necessary.
2. Now, the issue before this court is "whether a candidate not having Five years experience on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer is entitled to get promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer merely because his/her appointment was delayed by the recruitment authority?"
3. Background of this case is that pursuant to advertisement no. 3/2010, the petitioner submitted online application for participation in the process of selection on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, but due to technical error her application was accepted for the post of Junior Scientific Officer. When her request for correction was not accepted, she approached this court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12391/2010 and on 9.9.2010, while passing an interim order, she was allowed to participate in written examination for the post of Junior Environmental Engineer and the respondents were directed to keep her result in a sealed cover, and accordingly she appeared in the written examination and finally her petition was allowed vide order dated 12.7.2011 and the respondents were directed to declare her result and consider her case for appointment on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer. The above order was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench and before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the appeals were dismissed on 26.7.2012 and 23.11.2012 respectively, and finally appointment was given to the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2012 and on the basis of her merit, she was placed at serial number 6 in the seniority list prepared by the respondents for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer for the year 2015-16. Since the petitioner was not having requisite experience of Five years on the post of Junior Engineer, hence Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") did not consider her case for promotion. Due to lack of requisite experience of Five years, many posts remained vacant, hence the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short "RSPC Board") requested the State Government to grant relaxation in experience to fill the vacant promotion posts, and accordingly a decision was taken by the State to relax the Rules and relaxation of one-third (1/3) period was given for promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. In spite of grant of one-third period relaxation, the petitioner was lacking two-third experience, hence her case was not considered for promotion.
4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court by way of filing this petition with the following prayer:-
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, whereby impugned promotion order dated 21.7.2015 be quashed and set aside and petitioner be given promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer against the vacancies of the year 2014-15 with all consequential benefits.
b) Issue an appropriate writ,
Bhanwarlal Malakar v. State 1990 (1) RLR 576
C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala (2020) 5 SCC 230
K.K. Dixit v. Rajasthan Housing Board (2015) 1 SCC 474
Neeraj Kumar Sainy v. State of U.P. (2017) 14 SCC 136
Experience for promotion must be calculated from the vacancy year, not the actual promotion date, as per the relevant rules.
Notional service can be included in the calculation of eligibility for promotion, and administrative delays should not penalize an employee's right to promotion.
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....
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.
Promotion cannot be denied from eligibility and vacancy date merely due to departmental delay in convening DPC for clarifications; review DPC under service handbook Clause 16.29 grants notional benef....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of 'old vacancy old rule' does not apply universally and is interlinked with the candidate's right to be considered for promotio....
Promotion – In absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under proviso appended to Article 309 of Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to post according to rules,....
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.