KHEM SINGH DEORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18. 7. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 10. 7. 2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Jaipur by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of LDC, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1976 and he was substantively working on the said post. It was submitted by the petitioner that in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1963"), there is a provision for promotion from the post of LDC to the post of Sub-Inspector and since the petitioner was possessing all the qualifications and was within zone of consideration, therefore, he was granted promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector on adhoc basis vide order dated 4. 5. 1998, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. It may be stated here that through order Annex. 1 dated 4. 5. 1998, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector was made purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till duly selected candidates were made available by the DPC, whichever was earlier. THEreafter, vide order dated 7. 5. 1998 (Annex. 2), the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector at Jaipur. THE petitioner has also placed reliance on Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 in which there is a provision that in the event of availability of the post and if the urgency exists, then urgent temporary promotion can be made by way of giving promotion on adhoc basis to the eligible incumbent. Thus, the petitioner was promoted from the post of LDC to Sub-Inspector on adhoc basis as stated above, in accordance with the Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963. It may be stated here that there is a proviso to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary, and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur. All of a sudden, the petitioner received the impugned order Annex. 3 dated 10. 7. 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Jaipur by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of LDC from the post of Sub- Inspector and the ground of reversion as mentioned in the said reversion order Annex. 3 was that the case of the petitioner was considered against the vacancies of the year 2002-2003 in the meeting of the DPC, but the case of the petitioner has been kept in a sealed cover because of charge-sheet under Rule 16 and, therefore, he was reverted back to the post of LDC from the post of Sub-Inspector. Aggrieved from the said reversion order Annex. 3 dated 10. 7. 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Jaipur, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer as stated above and the impugned reversion order Annex. 3 has been challenged on the following grounds:- (1) That the impugned reversion order Annex. 3 is per se illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and it is also violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 & 311 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it should be quashed and set aside. (2) That once the promotion was made even on urgent temporary basis according to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 and vacancies were in existence in the year 1998 and the Department was not in a position to make regular promotion, therefore, without giving notice, the petitioner should have not been reverted to the post of LDC from the post of Sub-Inspector and from this point of view also, the impugned reversion order Annex. 3 is wholly illegal and thus, it should be quashed and set aside. (3) That since 1998 no DPC meeting was held and in the year 2002, the DPC meeting was held and in that meeting, vacancies for the year 2002-2003 were considered, but the case of the petitioner has been kept in a sealed cover and the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 2002, but consideration of the case of the petitioner for the vacancies arising in the year 2002-2003 is per se illegal because he was promoted in the year 1998 and the said charge sheet issued against the petitioner should have not affected the case of the petitioner and on this ground also the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Sub- Inspector to LDC is bad in law and should be set aside.

(3.) AS already stated above, such appointment made under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 will not be continued beyond a period of one year and there is no dispute on that point. Legal aspect on adhoc appointment