AKSBAYA RAJ GOJA Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jodhpur, on June 18, 1968. On September 21, 1968, this order was superseded and the petitioner was ordered to be treated as an Upper Division Clerk on ad hoc basis. This was confirmed by the Marketing Officer, Agricultural Department vide letter dtd. October 8,1968. THE Samiti vide order dated January 11, 1972, relieved him keeping his lien and treating him on leave without pay from January 12, 1972, as the petitioner was desirous of joining the University of Jodhpur. THE Samiti thereafter passed an order on July 21, 1972, directing the petitioner to return back to the service, and in pursuance of that, he came back and joined the service on August 10, 1972. THE period of the service of the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk, was extended from June 21, 1970 to March 31, 1973 vide order dated Nov. 29, 1973. He was then sent for training of Marketing Secretary vide order dated January 29,1975. On successful completion of this training, he was promoted as Assistant Secretary. But, without giving effect to this order he was promoted as Supervisor. THE Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board approved this promo on vide its communication dated May 28, 1976.

(2.) IN 1975, the State of Rajasthan framed the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets (Market Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). This was done under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Rules 64 of the Rules prescribes the method of recruitment for superior posts. Proviso 2 to sub-rule (1) of Rule 64 provides that a person who has continuously held posts of temporary basis in the service for a period of not less than six months on January 1, 1975, shall be screened by the Selection Board referred to in Rule 65 (1) for adjudging their suitability to the posts held on January 1 , 1975 provided they possess the qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion, on the basis of which persons were selected for ad hoc/temporary appointments.

(3.) THE above contentions of Mr. Mathur and Mr. Bhandari were sought to be repelled by Mr. Mridul on the ground that the proviso to Rule 64 (1) nowhere empowers the Selection Board to reject or declare the petitioner unsuitable on the post of Upper Division Clerk on the basis of the grounds relied upon by the respondents. It was pointed out that at the relevant time when the petitioner was appointed as a U. D. C. , there were no rules prescribed in the qualifications and whatever was required for the eligibility of a person for appointment or promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk was duly fulfilled by the petitioner.