Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Ram Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt. Department - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14966/2024
Decided On : 05-03-2025
(A) Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 - Clause (d) of Proviso to Rule 6 - The petitioners, holding both diploma and degree in Civil Engineering, challenged the revocation of their appointment as Junior Engineer (Degree Holders) after being appointed as Diploma Holders. The court found that the revocation was justified as the petitioners did not attain their degrees post-appointment, thus failing to meet the criteria for appointment under the relevant rules. (Paras 20-34)
(B) Natural Justice - The court ruled that principles of natural justice do not apply when no prejudice has been demonstrated by the petitioners due to the revocation of their appointments. (Paras 28-31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Diploma Holders) but later sought appointments as Junior Engineer (Degree Holders) based on their degrees. Their appointments were revoked after an opinion from the Department of Personnel deemed them improper.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the revocation of the petitioners' appointments, determining that their initial appointment as Degree Holders violated the criteria set by the Rules of 1973.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners' appointments as Degree Holders were proper under the rules, and if the revocation violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'attains' in the rules indicates that the degree must be acquired after appointment as a Diploma Holder for a transfer to Degree Holder status, and since the petitioners had degrees at the time of their initial appointment, the revocation was lawful.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. These writ petitions captioned above impugn different orders dated 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 passed qua each of the petitioners, whereby the earlier order dated 07.02.2024 appointing petitioners by way of transfer to the cadre of Civil Engineer (Degree Holders) has been recalled/revoked so also order dated 28.08.2024, whereby petitioners have been placed in the seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).
2. The facts of the cases are handful. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board – respondent No.5 had issued an advertisement dated 03.03.2020 notifying 59 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) and 15 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).
3. The petitioners had vied for both the categories of posts for Junior Engineer (Civil) (namely, Degree Holders and Diploma Holders) as they were having diploma so also degree in Civil Engineering at the time of furnishing their application form. As luck would have it, due to paper leak, the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) got deferred while the petitioners could however get their position secured in the merit list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders). It is a different matter that later on the petitioners appeared in the recruitment process of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) as well, but failed to get through.
4. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders) by way of order dated 30.11.2021, whereafter they were regularized as such.
5. Later on, the petitioners moved applications (petitioner No.1- dated 03.01.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14925/2024) seeking their appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) by asserting that they possess a degree in Civil Engineering as well.
6. Petitioners’ applications were favourably considered by the respondents and by way of orders dated 07.02.2024, not only petitioners’ degree were entered in their service record but their names were also added in the list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) and consequently, their names were reflected at appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Engineer - Degree Holders.
7. It is the case set up by the petitioners that when Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board – respondent No.2 sought opinion from the Department of Personnel about granting benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1973’), they opined that the appointment of the petitioners as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) is not proper for the reasons mentioned therein. And consequently, the orders impugned dated 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 came to be passed, whereby the above referred orders dated 07.02.2024 came to be canceled/revoked.
8. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the orders impugned dated 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 are illegal and liable to be set aside on various counts; firstly, being contrary to the principles of natural justice and secondly, because the same has been done solely on the basis of opinion of the Department of Personnel.
9. He argued that the benefit conferred upon an employee cannot be recalled without following due process of law and observing principles of natural justice. He also submitted that not only the petitioners but also hundreds of employees have been given benefit of such provision of Rules of 1973 and have been appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) on the basis of the degrees in Civil Engineering which they were holding even before being appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).
10. Inviting Court’s attention towards clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once a request to grant benefit under clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 has been accepted and ap
The court ruled that appointment as Junior Engineer (Degree Holders) requires obtaining the degree after appointment as Diploma Holders, and revocation was justified.
Diploma Junior Engineers acquiring AMIE/degree during service eligible for promotion post-3 years; pre-acquisition service not counted for seniority, as they enter graduate quota impacting original g....
An employee cannot be demoted without being given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed object....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective effect of a government order amending the Rules cannot nullify a previous judgment. Additionally, the Rules cannot be change....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requisition for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was sent in compliance with the statutory rules, and the Rules, 1968 p....
Promotion – In absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under proviso appended to Article 309 of Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to post according to rules,....
Amended promotion rules' 45% quota for Junior Engineers with 7 years service contains no Diploma/Degree requirement; unqualified seniors eligible; DPC rejection on qualification grounds invalid.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
