VIMLESH VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(2.) It has been submitted in the writ petition that in the year 2008, an amendment was introduced in the Rules vide which it was decided that all the vacancies of Live Stock Assistant would be filed by direct recruitment. The earlier provision was that 25% of seats of Live Stock Assistant would be filled by promotion and 75% by way of direct recruitment. Against the said amendment, a writ petition was preferred by many of the employees, the petitioner being one of them. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dtd. 30/4/2015 and it was held that the amendment cannot be made effective with a retrospective effect. Meaning thereby it was directed that 25% of the seats of Live Stock Assistant would be filled up by promotion only. The petitioner therefore prayed that he be promoted as Live Stock Assistant but the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dtd. 29/4/2016 on the premise that as he had not earlier been promoted as a Dresser (Lab Attendant), he cannot be promoted directly as Live Stock Assistant. Against the said rejection the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dtd. 29/4/2016 is factually incorrect as the petitioner was very much promoted as Lab Attendant and was working as such since the year 1994. In support of her submission she relied upon the experience certificate placed on record which shows that the petitioner had been working as a Lab Attendant since 22/10/1994. She also placed on record the seniority list dtd. 3/5/2002 wherein the date of joining of the petitioner on the post of Dresser (Lab Attendant) is shown to be 3/10/1994 and the year of getting training for the purpose of Live Stock Assistant is shown to be the year 1991-92.