SHAMBHU SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On being selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (For short 'dpc') , on merit basis, the petitioners in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 10090-92 of 1992, 10329, 12693-94 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994 were appointed by promotion to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, in the merit quota, by two separate orders dated 26/2/1988. They were promoted to the post carrying Junior Scale in that Service. Similarly, the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10670 of 1993 were promoted to the post carrying Selection Grade in that Service. In Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 17048-49 of 1993 filed by the State, Respondents 3 and 4 were promoted to the Selection Grade in the Rajasthan Accounts Service. All these promotions were given against the vacancies of the years 1981-82 to 1986-87. These promotions were challenged by the contesting respondents by filing appeals in the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate tribunal, on the ground that they were not in accordance with the Rules, inasmuch as those promotees did not have outstanding or very good record for all the 7 years preceding the year of their selection. The tribunal upheld the challenge and set aside those orders of promotion. Therefore the petitioners filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High court challenging the orders passed by the tribunal; but, did not succeed. Hence, these SLPs.

(2.) We are told by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the rules regarding selection on merit basis are almost the same, not only for the Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Accounts Services but also for other State Services. We, therefore, refer to the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules only. Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 lay down the criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts and cadre in the Service. Sub-rule (11 of that Rule provides that the Committee shall prepare a list on the basis of merit and as per the criteria for promotion laid down by the Rules. Explanation to that sub-rule is relevant for our purpose and it reads as under:

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the relevant rule, that is, the Explanation to sub-rule (11 does not prescribe how many years' service record should be considered by the DPC and for how many times during that period the record should be outstanding or consistently very good. The DPCs and other administrative authorities who had to construe, execute and apply the rule construed the requirement of the rule as 5 outstanding or very good out of 7 years' record. The High court, therefore, should have accepted that construction and should not have taken a different view. In support of this proposition the decisions of this. Court in Desh Bandhu gupta and Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd. and in K. P. Varghese v. ITO were relied upon. Itwas also contended that the High court should have made its decision prospective in operation as it would now be harsh to revert those promotees after so many years, particularly when they have gone higher by two steps. For support, the decisions in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rangachary and in D. K. Sahni v. Managing Director, Manganese Ore India Ltd. were relied upon.