2002 Supreme(Raj) 535
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Gopi Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2226 of 1991
Decided On : April 11, 2002
M.S. Singhvi, for Petitioner Bhim Arora, for Respondent
Headnote:Service Matter – Non-grant of promotion and selection scale on the basis of minor penalties – Held – Promotion is not a right of a Govt. Servant but consideration of promotion is right – His case was considered – Not found fit for promotion and selection scale – Denial is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct – Promotion can be withheld on account of minor penalties imposed u/Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 – Infringed no fundamental rights. (Paras 11 to 13)
Promotion of a person can be withheld on account of imposition of some minor penalties under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. (Para 13)
(2). It arises in the following circumstances:
(i) The petitioner was appointed in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 3.2.69 as Grading Assistant.
(ii) The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Department of Agricultural Marketing in the year 1976 and there the petitioner was posted as Secretary to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
(iii) A seniority list (Annex. 1) at page 24 of Agricultural Subordinate Service Personnel was issued on 5.1.88 which contained the names of 685 persons. Another list (Annex. 2) at page 36 was issued containing the names of 1070 persons. In the seniority list (Annex. 2), the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 451.
(iv) The promotion to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Agricultural Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960). Rule 9 of the Rules of 1960 provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes and it provides that the reservation shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government.
(v) Vide order dated 10.5.89 (Annex. 3) at page 61 promotions were made to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C. By this order 72 persons were promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C, but not a single person against the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes quota was promoted.
(vi) Vide order dated 28/29.12.1990 (Annex. 4) 91 promotions were made to the post of District Agriculture Officer, Group C.
(vii) A perusal of order dated 28/29.12.90 will reveal that two persons were promoted against the Scheduled Tribes quota and one person was promoted against the Scheduled Caste quota. When the petitioner was not promoted, he made enquiries and he came to know that he was not promoted on account of the fact that two minor penalties under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 were imposed on him vide orders dated 14.3.89 (Annex. 5) and 18.12.89 (Annex. 6).
(viii) Against the order dated 18.12.89, the petitioner had submitted an appeal before the State Government and that appeal is still pending before the State Government.
(3). It has been submitted by the petitioner that since both the penalties were minor penalties, therefore withholding of promotion on the ground of minor penalties is contrary to law and thus, the petitioner deserves to be promoted. Further more, the petitioner has completed 15 years of service in February, 1984, but he has not been granted selection grade and the reason for denial of selection scale appears to be that minor penalties have been imposed on the petitioner. Hence non-promoting the petitioner as well as non-grant of selection grade is contrary to law and both have been challenged in this writ petition and according to the petitioner, since because of minor penalties, he has been punished twice, therefore, it is a case of double jeopardy and orders dated 14.3.89 and 18.12.89 are illegal and violative of Articles 20 of the Constitution of India and thus, ignoring them he may be promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C.
(4). A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent on 18.11.92.
(5). In reply to para 8 to the writ petition, the respondent submitted that the promotion order dt. 10.5.89 contained the names of 72 persons only and they promoted in various years from 1984-9