Merit-based promotions take effect from the date of the promotion order, not the date of vacancy, as retrospective promotions are not justified.

Order :

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this petition for writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or direction -

i) the impugned order dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the representation filed by the petitioner may kindly allowed.

ii) the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to determine year-wise vacancies and promote the petitioner w.e.f. the respective year of availability of vacancies on the post of Assistant Registrar all consequential benefits.

iii) Further, the petitioner may kindly be given notional benefits w.e.f. the date of post Assistant Registrar got vacant.

iv) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be issued in favor of the petitioner.

v) Costs may kindly be also awarded.”

2. The bare factual matrix of the case for the consideration of this Court are that the petitioner was appointed as LDC on 28.07.1986, promoted to UDC on 23.11.1998, subsequently promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter on 05.04.2006, then the promotion happened for the post of Court Master on 20.11.2013, and now the bone of contention in the present matter is the promotion order to the post of Assistant Registrar, which was issued on 30.01.2020.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikas Balia appearing for the petitioner submits that the limited point for consideration before this court is that the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, which is a merit-based promotion, ought to have been given effect from the date when the vacancy arose, at least notionally, and not from the date when the order was made i.e. on 17.07.2020.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further taken this Court to the Rule 6 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’), in which determination of vacancies is prescribed. For ready reference, the said rule is reproduced hereunder :-

“6. DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES.—

(1) (a) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year.

(b) Where a post is to be filled in by a single method as prescribed in the Rules or Schedule, the vacancies so determined shall be filled in by that method.

(c) Where a post is to be filled in by more than one method as prescribed in the Rules or Schedule, the apportionment of vacancies, determined under clause (a) above, to each such method shall be done maintaining the prescribed proportion for the overall number of posts already filled in. If any fraction of vacancies is left over, after apportionment of the vacancies in the manner prescribed above, the same shall be apportioned to the quota of various methods prescribed in a continuous cyclic order giving precedence to the promotion quota.

(2) The Appointing Authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in.”

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was a mandatory requirement to determine the vacancy by 1^st April of every year, therefore, it was incumbent on the respondents to act upon the requirement and grant seniority from the date the vacancy arose; rather than the date of actual appointment.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 01.04.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7408/2014), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :-

“6 In view of above reply and Annexure-11, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner for promotion is pending and it is assured by the High Court that case of the petition