R.S. VERMA, J.—These two writ petitions bearing numbers 2308/86 by Sumer Singh and 2309/86 by Khyali Lal involve similar questions of law and fact. Hence, by consent of all the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. First, the facts in Sumer Singhs case: He entered service on 22.4.54 as a Teacher under the Development Department of the State of Rajasthan. On 15.2.58. he was transferred as L.D.C. in the Pindwara block. On constitution of Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara, his services were taken over by the said Panchayat Samiti on 2.10.59. He was promoted as U.D.C. w.e.f. 29.8.61 vide order dated 31.8.61. He was confirmed as U.D.C. on 11. 6.65 vide Annex. 1. He passed the Accounts Clerk Examination in the year 1964. The Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 27.8.65 appointed the petitioner as a temporary Accounts Clerk in Panchayat, Samiti Shivganj. The case of Sumer Singh is that, he while was working as Accounts Clerk, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 5.5.76 since an enquiry was contemplated to be held against him. A departmental enquiry duly took place. In the mean while, his suspension was revoked on 2.11.77 and he was posted as U.D.C. After a proper departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges. He was ordered to be treated on duty for the period of suspension. However, he was paid the salary of U.D.C. even though he was entitled to receive the salary of an Accounts Clerk. The petitioner did not challenge his posting as U.D.C. because of the enquiry pending against him.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1975, applications were invited for filling up vacancies in the cadre of Junior Accountants vide Circular dated 25.2. 75. The petitioner applied for the same but nothing transpired. Again applications were invited to fill up posts of Junior Accountants but he could not apply as he was under suspension. He however, submitted an application on 7.11.77 followed by a number of reminders but nothing came out of such applications. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, continued to serve as Accounts Clerk and Vikas Adhikari, Shivganj recommended his case for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant vide Annex. 5 dated 3.1.78. But again, nothing came out of this application inspite of repeated reminders.

4. The case of the petitioner further is that recently he came to know of the order Annex. 8 dated 26.3.77 whereby certain employees of different Panchayat Samitis had been promoted as Junior Accountants. His case is that in the matter of Khyali Lal, petitioner in the other writ petition, the Chief Accounts Officer informed Khyali Lal that it was not possible to appoint him as Junior Accountant as Khyali Lal was an employee of Panchayat Samiti and question of appointing employees of Panchayat Samiti as Junior Accountants was under consideration of the govt. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was eligible to be promoted as Junior Accountant, he has been unjustly by passed in the matter of such promotion. He claimed the following reliefs:-

"(1) The Respondent No. 2 be directed to appoint the petitioner as Junior Accountant on and from the date persons junior to him in the cadre of Account clerks were so appointed and to give to the petitioner such consequential benefits as may be due including consideration for the next higher post.

(2) Respondents be further directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Accountant on and from the date persons junior to him, consequent to their appointment as Junior Accountant, were considered therefore and to give him appointment on the said post on being found suitable on and from the date persons junior to him were so appointed and to give him all benefits consequential thereto.

(3) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.

(4) C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document