Advocates:
['SHARMA', 'JINESH JAIN G C', '', 'S C JAIN', 'ANIL MEHTA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5195/2001

Mahesh Prakash Sen, aged 38 years, son of Shri Madan Lal Sen,

Resident of Near Gudara Temple, Nala Mohalla, Jhalawar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan: Through: The Secretary, Local Self

Government Department, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Local Self Government Department, Government

of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chairman-cum-Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Jhalawar.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

None present.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Anil Mehta, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

31/10/2019

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.6.1999 whereby

he was reverted from the post of Sanitary Inspector. The

petitioner has come out with a case that he was appointed as

Zamadar on temporary basis in the pay scale of 240-3-270-4-290

vide order dated 1.9.1981 and was regularly drawing salary for

the said post. After having served for several years, he prayed for

granting him promotion and the petitioner’s case was considered

for promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector Gr.II as he

possessed the requisite experience on the post of Zamadar as per

the Rajasthan Nagar Palika (Subordinate and Clerical Services)

Rules, 1963 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1963’), Zamadar was

(2 of 5)

[CW-5195/2001]

required to have 5 years experience for the purpose of promotion

to the post of Sanitary Inspector Gr.II. Accordingly, the petitioner

was promoted vide order dated 16.6.1997 under the Rule 27 of

the Rules of 1963 and placed in the pay scale of 1200-2050.

Thereafter, the impugned order dated 1.6.1999 was passed taking

the promotions to be irregular. This court vide order dated

13.8.2002 after hearing both the parties stayed the effect in

operation of the order dated 1.6.1999.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

promotion awarded to the petitioner was found to be irregular as

the petitioner had not been confirmed on the post of Zamadar. The

procedure of promotion as laid down under Rules 27 of the Rules

of 1963 provides for regular promotion and there is no provision

for temporary promotion.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and no

one appears for the petitioner and perused the record finds that

the promotion awarded to the petitioner vide order dated

16.6.1997 mentions of promotion awarded to the petitioner under

Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963. However it also mentions that the

promotions is for a period of one year on temporary basis. Such a

procedure of granting promotions was contrary to the provisions

of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 which requires the concerned

municipality to consider cases of the eligible persons and awarded

promotion on regular basis. Admittedly, there were vacant posts

available in the year 1997 against which the petitioner has been

promoted while holding that the order dated 16.6.1997 has not

been passed in consonance with the provisions of Rule 27 of the

Rules of 1963 and apparently the petitioner who has the requisite

(3 of 5)

[CW-5195/2001]

experience and was working as Zamadar was entitled for

promotion as Sanitary Inspector Gr.II. The promotion was to be

treated on regular basis in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963

and not for one year on temporary basis. Instead of correcting

mistake in the order dated 16.6.1997, this court finds that the

respondents have proceeded to revert the petitioner by the order

impugned dated 1.6.1999. It is also noticed that before passing of

the order no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

Once the person is promoted on higher post and if the promotions

is found to be irregular the respondents were required to conduct

the review exercise and if in review exercise the candidature of

the petitioner is found to be correct and in order he was required

to be granted promotions accordingly. There was no o