[2026:RJ-JD:5835]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4834/2006 Bhera Ram Kadesha S/o Sh. Kesa Ram, Aged about 57 years, R/

o Posaliya, District-Sirohi (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Tele-

Communication, New Delhi.

2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur.

3. 3. General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar: Nigam Limited, Sirohi.

4. Divisional Engineer (Admn), Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sirohi.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

02/02/2026

1. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, even in the second round.

2. The matter pertains to the year 2006 and has remained pending for nearly 20 years. Considering the long pendency, this Court deems it appropriate to take up the matter.

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“xxxxxxxx A/ by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dtd.17/23.8.2004 (Annex.1) and the impugned order dtd.23.9.2005 (Annex.7) passed the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. by B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant official promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sr. TOA w.e.f. 1.1.1994.

B/ by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as optee candidate and thereby give the charge of the post of Senior TOA (G) Grade-III and accordingly fix the pay of the petitioner of the post of Senior TOA (G) Grade-111.

C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount of recovery, which has been made by the respondents from the petitioner's salary may kindly be ordered to be refunded back with interest @ 18% per annum.

D/ By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion το the post of Chief Section Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.2004 under the 10k quota of BCK schaam.

xxxxxxxxxx”

4. The facts of the case show that the petitioner was initially appointed as T/S Clerk vide order dated 19.04.1971. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Section Supervisor in the Clerical Cadre on 19.04.1987 and further promoted to the post of Senior Section Supervisor on 19.04.1993. The petitioner claims that he became eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Supervisor in the Clerical Cadre with effect from 01.01.2004;

however, no promotion order was issued in his favour.

It is further pleaded that the petitioner received an office order dated 17/23.08.2004 whereby he was treated as a non- optee candidate and his appointment on the post of Senior TOA (G) Grade-III, earlier granted on 30.01.1995, was cancelled and the benefit of advance increment was withdrawn. The petitioner has alleged that the demotion, revision of pay, and withdrawal of increment were illegal and arbitrary.

In response, the respondents submitted a reply dated

18.09.2004 stating that the petitioner never exercised his option under the promotion scheme introduced on 24.04.1994 and, therefore, could not be treated as an optee candidate. It was further stated that the petitioner had undergone only a three- week training meant for non-optee candidates at the District Telecom Centre, Pali-Marwar on 28.01.1995, but did not undergo the mandatory four-week training prescribed for candidates of the restructured cadre, which was essential for optee candidates.

5. Upon an overall perusal of the record, and in the absence of any assistance on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner himself did not express willingness to undergo the prescribed training for the post of Senior TOA, which was a mandatory requirement for availing further promotional benefits. In the absence of such training, th