[2025:RJ-JD:38343]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 786/2001 Anant Lal Panchal S/o Shri Kundanlal, by caste Panchal r/o Tripolia Road, Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Banswara

2. The Collector, Banswara

3. Yaswant Pandiya S/o Shri Udailal Pandiya, U.D.C. in the office of Collector, Banswara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Goyal and Mr. Vibhor Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal, GC HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

27/08/2025

1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘Oldest Cases for Early Disposal’.

2. None appears for the private respondent despite service.

3. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 27.01.2001/01.02.2001 (Annex.3) whereby promotion from the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) to Office Assistant had been granted to three incumbents including respondent No.3 Yaswant Pandiya.

3. The facts are that vide order dated 26.06.1993 (Annex.1), a promotion list was issued by the respondent Department and as the petitioner was not promoted vide the said list, he challenged the action of the respondent Authorities vide a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4237/1993.

4. The case of the petitioner was that despite being senior, he had not been accorded promotion whereas three persons junior to him had been promoted vide order dated 26.06.1993. The writ petition as filed by the petitioner stood allowed vide order dated

13.10.2000 (Annex.2).

5. The Court while allowing the said writ petition observed and directed as under:

“Thus, in view of the above, the impugned order of promotion datd 26-6-93 (Annx.3) is hereby quashed. It is further clarified that as only five persons had been promoted as Office Assistants and persons whose names appear at Serial No. 1 and 2, namely Chiman Lal and Suresh Chandra Gupta had been senior to the petitioner and Chiman Lal has already retired and Suresh Chandra Gupta will retire on 31-10-2000, there shall be no order adversely affecting them. The promotion of the remaining three persons is hereby quashed. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to hold a review D.P.C. to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith those two persons and in case petitioner is found otherwise suitable, he shall be offered promotion from the date of the impugned order dated 26-6-93 with all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.”

6. In compliance of order dated 13.10.2000, the respondent Department proceeded on to conduct a review DPC but then again proceeded on to promote the same three persons who were promoted vide earlier order dated 26.06.1993.

7. It is the said order dated 27.01.2001/01.02.2001 (Annex.3)

which is under challenge in the present petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being a specific finding of the Court to the effect that the promotion is to be made on basis of seniority, the respondent Department again proceeded on to accord promotion on basis of seniority cum merit, which is erroneous.

9. Counsel submits that order dated 13.10.2000 was not put to challenge either by the private respondent or by the State Authorities and hence, the same definitely attained a finality. In such case, the respondent Authorities were under an obligation to comply with the same and could not have adopted a procedure different from that as directed vide order dated 13.10.2000.

10. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent State submits that order dated 13.10.2000 did not direct for grant of promotion only on basis of seniority. The mere direction was to conduct a review DPC and to consider the case of the petitioner along with the other persons. Further, the direction was to the effect that if the petitioner is found otherwise suitable, he be afforded promotion w.e.f. 26.06.1993.

11. The respondent Authorities conducted a review DPC and as was the prescribed criteria i.e