STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AKLANKA JINDEL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated Feb. 25, 1981, whereby a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated May 4, 1979, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent Aklanka Jindal entered the service in 1960 of the Government of Rajasthan and became member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. He was given senior scale in the year 1971 and was confirmed in that scale in 1976. The Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his case for promotion to selection grade in the reserve list in the year 1976. He was consequently promoted to selection grade on March 14, 1978. In the year 1978 another Departmental Promotion Committee considered his case and this time he was superseded and a number of junior persons were promoted, both on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit. Another Departmental Promotion Committee in the same year 1978 promoted some more persons junior to Shri Jindal under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1954'). The Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1978 took into consideration certain adverse remarks of the year 1973-74 and an order of punishment dated 31st July, 1978. Shri Jindal filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal against the orders of the Departmental Promotion Committee whereby he was superseded and persons junior to him were promoted. The Tribunal took the view that there was no sufficient ground to hold the appellant unsuitable for promotion mainly because adverse entry in the part of the year 1973-74 was more than off-set by the good entry given by another reporting officer for the same year. The Tribunal further found that the fact regarding punishment to the appellant was within the knowledge of the D.P.C. which met in 1976 and if at that time this was not considered serious enough to hinder the selection on the basis of comparative merit it stood condoned. The tribunal also found that the appointing authorities may for reasons to be recorded in writing, supersede a person on the basis of his record but the right of consideration cannot be denied. In the present case even the persons rejected by the D.P.C. were alleged to have been promoted and as such there was no reason why the case of the appellant had been singled out. In the result the tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the order in so far as it related to the reversion of the appellant and declared the appellant suitable for promotion by seniority-cum-merit, and gave a direction to promote the appellant in the selection grade of Rajasthan Administrative Service with effect from the date, the recommendations of the D.P.C. of 1978 were implemented. Aggrieved against the order of the tribunal the State of Rajasthan filed a writ petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned single Judge held that he was in agreement with the view taken by the tribunal, that if during a period of 7 years, the record of a civil servant has been, all through, good and the A.C.Rs. consistently recorded the entries of good work, the mere fact, that adverse entries based on six months observations, out of a year, is made after more than years, and that too when the other half year's working is treated as good, not only by the immediate officer, but even up to the rank of the Chief Secretary, the civil servant should (not) be deprived of his earned prospects and future promotions or selection grade whatsoever the case may be. Learned Single Judge further observed that even if two views were possible which according to him was not so, this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere because it cannot be said that the tribunal had acted and committed any error of jurisdiction or there was any error apparent on the face of the record. An argument was raised by the learned Government Advocate before the learned Single Judge that the tribunal had got no powers to substitute the orders of the D.P.C. The tribunal should have sent the case for reconsideration to the D.P.C. In this regard the learned Single Judge took the view that the tribunal was an appellate forum and authority. There were no fetters, riders, limitations, or impediments in the way of the tribunal created by the Statute, while exercising its appellate power. According to the learned Single Judge it was well settled principle of law that an appellate forum or authority had got jurisdiction, co-extensive with the Government and unless the Statute restricted or used words to the contrary by express words, such power vested in the tribunal. S. 4(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) was taken into consideration in this regard. In the result, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State of Rajasthan has filed this special appeal.