J C BHATIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special leave is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reversing on appeal the judgment of a learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and another Kalu Ram. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated in a short compass.

(2.) The appellant entered the service of the former Kotah State on 11-4-1949 as a temporary Overseer. In due course he was promoted as an officiating Assistant Engineer on 26-10-1959. On 8-1-1968, 41 Engineering Subordinates were appointed as officiating Assistant Engineers against permanent posts and 35 against temporary vacancies. On 17-1-1968 services of 17 temporary Assistant Engineers, were terminated and 4 temporary Assistant Engineers, including the appellant, were reverted to their substantive cadre as Engineering Subordinates. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court on 22-1-1968 challenging both these orders. The learned Single Judge following his earlier decision in Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petn. No. 79 of 1967 allowed the writ petition and held that reversion of the appellant while keeping or promoting junior men in his place was not valid and quashed the orders reverting the appellant as well as the order appointing the 76 Assistant Engineers, already referred to. The State of Rajasthan took the matter on appeal before a Division Bench and the Bench following its decision in Special Appeal No. 57. of 1968 reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petn. 79 of 1967 allowed the appeal. That judgment of the Division Bench had been rendered after the judgment in the present case.

(3.) In the meanwhile the judgment of the Division Bench in Guman Singh's case (supra) Spl. Appeal No. 57 of 1968 came up to this Court on appeal (1971) 2 SCC 452. In considering the circular dated August 27, 1966 containing administrative instructions for the guidance of Selection Committees and the Appointing Authorities, and laying down a marking system for that purpose, this Court observed that it was so rigid that it curtailed the powers conferred on the appointing authorities by statutory rules and it was therefore opposed to statutory Rules 28-B and 32, and held it void thus restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Guman Singh's case C. W. Petn. No. 79 of 1967, dated 7-11-68. The selections of the 76 persons, who were appointed on 8-1-1968, were made on the basis of the circular held invalid by this Court and the selections of the 76 persons, who were appointed on 8-1-1968, were made on the basis of the circular held invalid by this Court and the selections have necessarily got to be set aside. The result would be that the Departmental Promotion Committee would now have to reconsider the promotion of all these 76 persons as well as the appellant leaving out of account the circular of August 27, 1966.