STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SRIRAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The respondent, Sriram Verma, is an officer belonging to the Rajasthan Administrative Service. By an order dated 24/3/1991, thirteen officers were "selected and appointed in senior pay scale. . subject to review and revision for the year 1990-91 as prescribed in the separate list mentioned in Rule 28-B (11 (b) " of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. Thirteen officers selected and appointed under the said order were mentioned under two categories separately. Nine officers were mentioned under the heading "on the basis of seniority and merit" and four officers were mentioned under the heading "on the basis of merit". Among the nine officers promoted on the basis of seniority and merit, "shri Ashok Kumar Sanvaria (Scheduled Caste) " was mentioned at Serial No. 8.

(3.) The respondent, Sriram Verma, who is also a member of a Scheduled Caste, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Rajasthancivil Services Appellate tribunal. He complained that his junior, Ashok Kumar Sanvaria, has been promoted while he himself has been overlooked wrongly. The learned advocate appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted before the tribunal that an enquiry was pending against the respondent under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and also because the impugned promotions were in the nature of urgent/temporary promotions, the respondent herein was not promoted. The tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent holding that "a perusal of the written reply filed by the government does not very clearly indicate whether the appellant's case for promotion was considered by the DPC or not". The tribunal observed that during the arguments, no doubt, the advocate for the State did mention that an enquiry was pending against the respondent but that assertion was squarely denied by the respondent's counsel. The respondent's case was that "on the date of DPC, there was no enquiry pending against him". The tribunal observed that it is not clear whether the respondent's case for promotion was considered by the DPC or not. If an enquiry was pending against him, the tribunal observed, his name should have been kept in a sealed cover after considering him and if no enquiry was pending against him, "then clear recommendations should have been recorded by the DPC in respect of the appellant". The appeal was allowed accordingly and the government was directed to place the respondent's case for promotion to the selection scale against the vacancies for the year 1990-91 before the DPC. The DPC was directed to record its clear recommendations about the respondent.