BANEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner was selected by the Commission for the post of Inspector of the Cooprative Department. The Registrar, Cooperative Department, by his letter No. 2619/Estt/F. Recruitment CDR/56 dated February 14, 1956 in formed the petitioner that he has been selected and was required to report to the Principal, Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore for receiving the necessary training latest by February 21, 1956 at it has already commenced working. In that letter, it was, inter alia, mentioned that regular appointment as Inspector will depend on the successful completion of training After completion of training at the Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore the petitioner was appointed Inspector in the Cooperative Department in the grade of 110 -5 -135 EB -10 -225 as the grade had been revised and the salary was fixed at Rs. 110 -. plus usual dearness allowance. The appointment order was provisional pending announcement of the result of the training. Subsequently the petitioner was declared successful by the Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore. The posts of Inspector Grade IF were the posts created for the plan period and when these posts were made permanent w.e.f. July 1, 1959, the petitioner was also confirmed as Inspector Grade II w.e.f. July 1, 1959 under the orders of the Registrar dated June 3, 1965. The order dated June 3, 1965 confirming the petitioner w.e.f. July 1, 1959 has been filed by the petitioner marked as Annexure -2. By order No. F. 1 (6 -B) CDR/Estt/L/56 dated July 3 and 4, 1967, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued a provisional common seniority list of permanent Inspectors (Executive and Audit) of the Cooperative Department appointed upto December 31, 1958 The name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 108 in the seniority list (Annexure -3). The persons whose names are mentioned in para 20 of the writ petition are junior to the petitioner. Out of those 20 persons some of them have only been impleaded as non -petitioners in the writ petition, for, they have not been reverted under the impugned order dated November 30, 1973. Thereafter another provisional common seniority list of permanent Inspectors (Executive and Audit) of the Cooperative Department appointed upto December 31, 1958 was issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Department under his order dated October 22, 1970. The said seniority list has been file by the petitioner marked as Annxure -4, According to the petitioner, respondents No. 3 and 4 (whose name was ordered to be struck off vide court's order dated July 22, 1975) and respondents No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were selected as auditors by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on March 7/8, 1956 in the grade of 90 -5 -160. They were, however appointed as Inspectors Audit near about September 29, 1956. Subsequently under order dated July 4, 1967, these persons were retrospectively appointed as Inspectors (Audit) in the Cooperative Department w.e.f. March 8, 1956 when they were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Auditors. The petitioner has stated that respondents No. 3 to 8 and 10 to 13 are junior to him and it was on account of their having been appointed as Inspectors (Audit) w.e.f. March 8, 1956 while the petitioner was appointed with effect from February 20, 1956. So also he has stated that respondents No; 9 and 14 are also junior to him as they were appointed as Inspectors w.e.f. June 26, 1956 and July 4, 1956 respectively while, the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. February 20, 1956. Respondent No. 15 is said to be formely Inspector Grade III and wais promoted as Inspector Grade II under Government Order No F. 1(27) Cooperatives/57 dated May 5, 1958. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector Grade 1 under Order No. 80098 F. 3/Prom/CDR/Estt/8/57 (Anx. 5) dated November 21, 1960. Respondents No. 3 to 15 were promoted as Cooperative Inspectors Grade I subsequent' sometime in the year 1960 or even later. The petitioner goes on to say; that he along with 20 others including respondents No. 5 to 14 was appointed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on ad -hoc basis under; the orders of the Govt. No. F. 18(8) Cooperattve/1/67 dated April 18, 1968. Respondents No. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 were also promoted as Assistant Registrar on ad -hoc basis vide order No. F. 18(98) Cooperative/1/67 dated April 18/20, 1967. Other respondents were also promoted as Assistant Registrars on ad hoc basis from time to time. Respondent No. 10 was also promoted as officiating Assistant Registrar on ad hoc basis under Govt. Order No./18(15)/Cooperative/1/69 dated August 7, 1969. The Registrar (respondent No. 2) by his order No. F. CO1/Estt/B/II/73/6 dated April 4, 1973 purported to issue a seniority list of Inspectors Grade II Audit and Executive as on January 1, 1973 and in the order it was mentioned that errors Or omissions if any, may be brought to his notice within a period of one month from the date of issue of the order, meaning thereby that the seniority list was provisional in nature. In the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No -27. Subsequently, vide Order No. F. 1(6) CDR/Estt/B/II/73 dated. September 4, 1973, respondent No. 2 issued a final seniority list of Inspectors (Executive) Grade. II as on July 1, 1973. Vide Order No. 24(46)CDR/Estt/Audit 1962; dated October 8, 1973 respondent No. 2 issued another seniority list of Inspectors (Audit) Grade II as on September 20, 1973. In the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 32. According to the petitioner all the Inspectors Grade II in the Cooperative Department whether executive or audit form one common cadre and under the Rules in vogue there should have been one common seniority of all of them, and so the issuance of seniority list was not in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Service (Class I) Rules, 1955, (For short the Rules hereafter).

(3.) I have heared Mr. B. R. Arora; learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. N. Calla, learned Additional Government Advocate.