MADAN TOLANI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Madan Tolani challenging the order dated 11.8.1995 (Ex.16) by which date of confirmation of the petitioner was changed and the order dated 7.3.1995 (Ex.15), by which his year of promotion on the post of L.D.C. to U.D.C. was changed and seniority list dated 10.10.1994 by which the private respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were shown senior to the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI R.C. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of the petitioner was shown at S. No. 10 in the provisional seniority list of L.D.C., which was issued by the respondent -Board on 4.4.1978 whereas private respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were shown respectively at S. No. 49, 14, 16, 50 and 51. The provisional seniority list of L.D.C. that was issued again on 14.6.1983 reflected the name of petitioner at S. No. 46 whereas private respondent No. 3 Satish Kumar Sharma and respondent No. 4 Meena Motwani were shown at S. No. 52 and 53. The same position was maintained in the final seniority list dated 11.1.1984, but again the provisional seniority list was issued on 4.3.1985 in which name of petitioner was shown at S. No. 40, whereas private respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were shown respectively at S. No. 30, 31, 32, 38 & 39, to which the petitioner objected. In the final seniority list that was issued on 18.11.1987, the respondents corrected that position wherein name of petitioner was at S. No. 32 and the private respondents at S. No. 61, 39, 40, 62 and 63. Even when the name of the petitioner was twice placed above respondents in the final seniority lists, the respondent Board again issued a provisional seniority list on 17.8.1994 showing the name of petitioner at S. No. 18, whereas private respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were shown respectively at S. Nos. 13 to 17. Though the petitioner submitted objections to the provisional seniority list. His objections were however overruled and the final seniority list was issued on 10.10.1994, reiterating the same position. In between, the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 28.5.1987 (Ex. -11) on the post of U.D.C. on the basis of his higher placement in the seniority list referred to above. The respondents illegally reviewed the recommendations of the DPC and changed the year of his selection from 1987 -88 to 1992 -93. This was wholly illegal because date of appointment of the petitioner was 22.2.1973, which was much earlier than the date of initial appointment of private respondents. Learned Counsel referred to Rule 27 -A of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short -'the Rules of 1987') and argued that prior to insertion of that Rule by amendment notification dated 31.10.1975, the Board of Revenue maintained the seniority of each of the cadres of the ministerial staff of not only the office of the Board of Revenue, but also of various District Collectorates at the State level. Despite therefore, transfer of the petitioner on his own request to the service of the Board vide order dated 15.6.1973, he would nevertheless be entitled to higher seniority than the private respondents.

(3.) SHRI S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel and Shri Syed Zakawat Ali, learned Deputy Government Counsel and Shri L.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the private respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the petitioner was placed higher than the respondents and was granted promotion on the post of U.D.C., number of objections were received. Appeals were filed before the Rajasthan State Service Appellate Tribunal at the instance of private respondent No. 5 Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma wherein challenge was lade to the lastly issued seniority list as well as the promotion granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal held that in determining seniority of the petitioner and Ors. the Board has omitted to consider the effect of amend tent introduced by way of insertion of proviso (xvii) to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1957 and also did not consider the effect of proviso (xi -a) of the said Rule 27. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and directed the Board of I :venue to re -draw the seniority and also review the recommendations of the DPC with respect to the promotion.