Rajasthan High Court
Kan Singh, J.
Dr. Shrikant Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1035 of 1970
Decided On : January 21, 1975
2. The petitioner was a Bachelor in Veterinary Science of the year 1957. On 27-7-57 he was appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Glass II on temporary basis. Certain posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Class II came to be advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner applied for one such post and he was appointed vide Government order dated 18-2-60 with effect from 27-7-57. The petitioner was confirmed on this post i.e. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Class II with effect from 12-2-61. The respondents Servashri D.S. Bhandari, V P. Arora and L.R. Verma came to be appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Class II on temporary basis with effect from 5-10-57, 5-10-57 and 9-10-57 respectively. Later on they applied in pursuance of an advertisement by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and came to be appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Class II temporarily vide order dated 11-11-57 (Ex. 3). This order was amended and the words "till further orders" came to be inserted in the order Ex. 3 after the word "temporarily". By another order dated 4 6-8 the previous orders Ex. 3 and the subsequent order dated 20-12-57 (Ex. 4) were superseded and the respondents were appointed on one years probation with effect from 21-10-57 vide order Ex. 5. The result of these amendments was that the respondents came to be appointed on one years probation from 21-10-57. The petitioner claims that he came to be appointed substantively with effect from 27-7-57 and was thus senior to these respondents Besides claiming seniority over these respondents the petitioner submits that their initial appointment as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Class II was violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as they made their applications to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after 5-7 57, the last date for the making of such applications. The petitioner avers that he did not make the application after 5 7-57 thinking that such application would not be entertained and yet the applications made by the respondents after the prescribed date were entertained and they were selected. The petitioner further states that a provisional seniority list was prepared for the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Class II on 19-5-66 and the petitioners name appeared at serial Number 22 above those of the respondents at Serial Nos. 24, 25 and 26, respectively. This was Ex. 6 on record. However, when the seniority list was finalised the petitioner was shown junior to these respondents. The petit oner, therefore, made his representation against the assignment of lower seniority to him vis-a-vis the respondents, but that was of no avail.
3. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is denied that the petitioner was senior to respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It is further denied that the appointments of these respondents were in violation of Art. 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Then by way of preliminary objection it was urged that the writ petition for challenging the appointments of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had been filed after an inordinate del
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.