SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Raj) 8

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

Advocates Appeared:
M. Mridul, for Petitioner; A.K. Mathur, Addl. Government Advocate; A.K. Bhandari, for Respondent

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 16, 14 and 226 Application made after last date advertised — Where option to relax conditions of qualifications or that applications could be received thereafter not reserved it would not be open to competent authority to relax terms of advertisement—However, court would not give relief to petitioners who comes to court after long lapse of time.

       

KAN SINGH, J.—This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Dr. Shrikant Rao for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He has prayed: (1) that the appointments of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to the posts of veterinary Assistant Surgeons be quashed, (2) the respondent State be directed to determine the number of vacancies year by year to the next higher posts above the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee for examining the suitability of the petitioner and others and then to make appointments by promotion against the vacancies available for promotion quota in the year in which the petitioner became eligible to be promoted (3) the respondent State be directed to issue final seniority list of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in accordance with law.

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









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top