Case: Dr. Rahul Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Judges | Mohammad Rafiq, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Service Rules - Rule 7(8) |
| Citation | 2010 (1) WLN 662 |
| Judgement Date | January 05, 2010 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Mohammad Rafiq, J., (Jaipur Bench)
-
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1996 challenging therein the judgment dated 01.03.1996 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') by which, promotion granted to him on the post of Associate Professor (Paediatrics Surgeon) was set-aside and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for such promotion against the quota of the year 1991-92 was ordered to be reviewed. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of possessing seven out of seven outstanding/very-good APARs for preceding years; the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, 'the DPC') was convened on 24.10.1991, and that the Rules, amended vide Notification dated 30.11.1991, which provided that such outstanding/very-good APARs would be required only in five years out of preceding seven years, would apply prospectively. The learned Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Singh Meenn and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 431.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, although in the very beginning assailed the judgment of the learned Tribunal, but when pointedly asked whether the review DPC was convened in compliance of the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal and consequential order was passed on 27.06.1996 promoting both, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, it was stated that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Associate Professor against the quota of the year 1994-95 whereas, respondent No. 3 was promoted on that post against the quota of the year 1991-92. This Court while issuing notice of the writ petition, did not deem it appropriate to pass interim-order and, therefore, the respondent State issued order of promotion for remaining posts and both the parties availed the benefit thereof and enjoying the same for the last 15 years.
-
The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned-judgment is bad in law because respondent No. 3, promoted against the quota of the year 1991-92, did not perform the teaching job for a considerable time period of about three years as he was on an assignment away from the country and, as such, he is not entitled for any benefit of the said period of service unless the duty certificate is issued by the Government of Rajasthan...
To continue reading
Request your trial