Case: Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Judges | Narendra Kumar Jain and Raghuvendra S. Rathore, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | RLW 2010 (3) Raj 2319 |
| Judgement Date | February 05, 2010 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Narendra Kumar Jain, J., (Jaipur Bench)
-
While the learned Division Bench of this Court was hearing the special appeals arising out of the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in respect to promotion of R.A.S. Officers, it was suggested by the learned Counsels for the parties that since the Division Bench is hearing the appeals against the interim orders, the writ petitions itself be heard and decided by it. As suggested and agreed by the counsels, a learned Division Bench of this Court, on 20.10.2009, directed the registry to list all such writ petitions and special appeals (SAW No. 618/2009) for final disposal. Thereafter, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide his order dated 17.12.2009, directed that hearing of the matters be done by this Court. Hence, the present writ petitions are before us.
-
Both these writ petitions raises a similar controversy in respect of promotion to selection scale in Rajasthan Administrative Service, on merit basis, against the vacancies of the year 1991-92 and the issues to be adjudicated are one and the same, as such these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
Brief facts of Writ Petition of Ajay Singh:
-
The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8.12.99 (Annex.4) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the review petition filed by Shri M.M. Joshi respondent No. 3 was allowed and he was declared eligible for promotion to selection scale, on merit basis, against the vacancies of the year 1991-92. Accordingly, it was ordered that a review DPC be held and proper placement may be given to him in selection scale in accordance to seniority, with all consequential benefits. The said exercise was to be done within a period of two months. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set-aside. Further, it is prayed that the respondent No. 3 be placed below the petitioner in accordance with the decision dated 23.2.1996 (Annexure-1) and the list issued on 1.4.1998 (Annexure-5).
-
The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 were appointed on 15.10.1979 in Rajasthan Administrative Services, in Short (RAS). Both of them were promoted to senior scale on the basis of their seniority and there is no dispute in respect of their inter-se seniority upto that level. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to selection scale on 23.2.1996 against the vacancies of the year 1991-1992 on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The respondent was superseded as he was given selection scale for the year 1992-1993.
-
It is note worthy that an amendment was made in the relevant Rules by appending explanation to Rule 28-B(2)(C) with effect from 30.11.1991, whereby the merit criteria was changed from seven out of seven outstanding/very good in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, in short (APARs), to five out of seven APARs. This led to litigations before various Forums i.e. The Rajasthan State Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, in short (Tribunal), as well as the High Court and finally, the controversy was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Shambhoo Meena v. The State of Rajasthan 1995 Supp (2) SCC 431, holding that change in "the law would take effect prospectively. Consequently, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee, in short (review DPC), was held which resulted in the issuance of revised promotion list for the years 1987-1988 to 1994-95. The petitioner was promoted to selection selection on the basis of merit and his name appeared at Serial No. 5 against the year 1991-92, vide order dated 23.2.96 (Annex. 1). The respondent was promoted against the vacancy for the year 1992-93 on the basis of merit and his name appeared at Serial No. 13.
-
The respondent challenged the allotment of year 1992-93 by filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed on 17.9.96. Thereafter, another appeal was filed on 4.10.98 in respect to the same subject and relief. The said appeal was withdrawn on 12.10.99 on the ground that he wants to file a review petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial