Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J., CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.
Ram Niwas Soni S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Ji Soni – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General – Respondent
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
Merit-based promotions take effect from the date of the promotion order, not the date of vacancy, as retrospective promotions are not justified.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
Vacancies which arose prior to amendment of Rules should be filled up only in accordance with un-amended Rules, disposed of petition reserving liberty to respondents/State to review any promotion gra....
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotion is not a vested right and an employee only has the right to be considered for promotion.
Promotion and seniority can only be awarded retrospectively when vacancies exist at the time of officiating promotions, and the Department must reevaluate claims based on factual evidence.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
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
