IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that promotions cannot be indefinitely treated as ad-hoc, affirming the need for regularization and proper consideration for further promotions.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that seniority list dated 27.02.1996 issued by the respondents be declared illegal; a direction to the respondents to accord him promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AEN’) has also been sought with an assertion that his case was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPC’), when candidature of other persons of feeder cadre was considered as per said seniority list.

2. The facts appertain to be noticed are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Pump Mechanic on 29.04.1969 and his services were confirmed vide order dated 08.05.1980, while making such confirmation/regularization effective from 27.12.1973.

3. Despite the fact that petitioner’s appointment was confirmed on the post of Pump Mechanic, the respondents had not considered his proficiency certificate equivalent to Diploma in Mechinal Engineering for which, he filed a writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.513/1985), which came to be allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 18.01.1995.

4. Pursuant to the above referred order, the petitioner’s proficiency certificate was treated equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and consequent thereto, he was later on promoted to the post of Pump Foreman on 08.09.1989.

5. The respondents in turn issued combined/interlaced seniority list of eligible candidates to be promoted to the post of AEN on 27.02.1996. The petitioner’s name was however not reflected therein.

6. The petitioner raised his grievance before the respondents and requested to include his name in the seniority list but no heed was paid, resultantly, the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel having apprised the Court about the factual backdrop, submitted that the post of Pump Foreman is a feeder post for the purpose of promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer and as per petitioner’s date of appointment and applicable law, his name ought to have been shown at serial No.19 above Hanuman Prasad.

8. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the respondents had published an incorrect seniority list on 27.02.1996 and since the said seniority list did not contain petitioner’s name, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of AEN. He argued that petitioner’s right to get promotion has been illegally taken away by the respondents.

9. Learned Senior Counsel argued that though petitioner has raised objection qua the seniority list but no order was passed and resultantly he had retired on 31.08.2000, serving the respondents as Pump Foreman only.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Pump Foreman was ad-hoc, respondents did not treat him to have been promoted on the post of Pump Foreman.

11. On Court’s query, learned counsel appearing for the State has accepted the position that the petitioner was neither reverted to the previous post nor had any other person joined as Pump Foreman. He was also unable to satisfy the Court as to why petitioner’s promotion to the post of Pump Foreman was considered ad-hoc until he retired.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. A perusal of the office order dated 08.09.1989 reveals that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Pump Foreman indicating the same to be on Urgent Temporary Basis/ad-hoc but the said order unequivocally mentioned that his promotion was made against existing vacancies.

14. It is also stipulated in the order that his promotion was made until surplus personnel were made available by the General Administration Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GAD’), Jaipur or till candidate selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee/Rajasthan Public Service Committee (in short ‘RPSC’) are made available, whichever is earlier.

15. Concededly, from 08.09.1989 neither any person was made available by th