S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325/2013 and Stay Application No. 1860/2013. Case: Sohan Lal Verma and Another Vs Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Registrar and Others. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2325/2013 and Stay Application No. 1860/2013
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Nawab Ali Rathore, Counsel and For Respondents: Shri Dharmendra Pareek, Additional Government Counsel
JudgesMohammad Rafiq, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 15(4), 16, 16(4)
Judgement DateMay 06, 2014
CourtRajasthan High Court

Judgment:

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

  1. Petitioners are member of Scheduled Caste category and they are working on the post of Patwari in Tonk District. Petitioner No. 1 stood at S. No. 69 and petitioner No. 2 stood at S. No. 75 in the seniority list published by respondent No. 2 on 21.12.2012.

  2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have not been promoted to the post of Land Record Inspector, whereas their juniors have been given promotion vide order dated 02.01.2013. The petitioners do not have any adverse remarks nor any departmental enquiry pending against them. There is no stigma in their service record nor has any penalty been awarded to them during relevant period. It is contended that it is a case of clear discrimination with the petitioners whereby their juniors have been given promotion on the post of Land Record Inspector depriving them from their right.

  3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection invited attention of the court towards the seniority list dated 01.04.2012, wherein the petitioner No. 1 Sohan Lal Verma stands at Serial No. 69 and petitioner No. 2 Amrit Lal Bairwa stands at Serial No. 75. Learned counsel further invited attention of the court towards the promotion order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure-2), in which all the candidates from Serial No. 34 onwards upto Serial No. 55 are junior to the petitioners having been shown from Serial No. 80 onwards upto Serial No. 119.

  4. It is argued that the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit and therefore seniority in any case could not be given completely go by and has to be adhered to while making promotions.

  5. The respondents in para 4 of the reply to the writ petition stated that in the year 2012-13 there were 308 posts of Land Record Inspector. Out of those, 62 posts were to be filled in through direct recruitment and 246 posts were to be filled in on the basis of recommendations of the departmental promotion committee. Out of 246 posts, 178 posts were meant for general category, 39 posts for schedule caste category and 29 posts of scheduled tribe category. For the year 2012-13, which is the year in question, there were only 10 seats vacant in the scheduled caste category. The tenth Schedule Caste candidate promoted in that year came at serial No. 48 in the general seniority list of Ajmer division, while name of petitioners came at Serial No. 69 and 75 in the seniority list, who stand at serial No. 20 and 23 in the merit of Scheduled Caste category and thus they are not entitled to promotion against the vacancies of the year 2012-13.

  6. Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents Department, has not disputed that many candidates junior to the petitioners have been promoted prior to the petitioners.

  7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

  8. The method adopted by the respondents in considering the case of the petitioners for promotion is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Even if only 10 posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste category in the year 2012-13, there was no reason why cases of the petitioners could not be considered against unreserved posts, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT