DHARAM VIR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having secured Diploma in Civil Engineering, the petitioner joined Government service w.e.f. 18.8.65 when he was appointed as Engineering Subordinate (Civil) on temporary basis in Public Works Department. He was con.!-.-,led as Engineering Subordinate w.e.f. 9.9.75. The petitioner passed his AMIE examination on 31.7.77. This qualification has been treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. By order dated, 19.7.79, the petitioner was designated as Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f.31.7.77. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on urgent temporary basis by Government order dated, 10,2,81. Subsequently, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee he was promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Government order dated, 24.6.82. His promotion has been made against the quota of 1981. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been assigned the quota of 1978 instead of 1981. because, he was eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer against that quota. The petitioner has referred to the case of one Shri G. C. Mathur, who had filed writ petition before the High Court. His Writ Petition No. 837/1983 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.11.1988 after having been contested by the respondents. In its, judgment dated, 29.11.88, the High Court declared that the experience gained by a Engineering personnel, before acquiring qualification of Degree or equivalent qualification is countable for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post. The Court directed that the petitioner G. C. Mathur be considered for promotion for the vacancies available after the year 1975. The petitioner claimed that although, the Department of Personnel has issued a Circular dated, 3.1.87 and has enjoined upon all the parties that once the judgment is rendered by the competent court, the principles laid down in that case shall be applied in similar cases, notwithstanding that the respondents have not given him the benefit of the judgment of this Court in G. C. Mathur's case. The petitioner made representation dated, 3.3.89 and then again made representation on 22.1.91. However, these representations have remained un-answered. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be considered for promotion against the quota of 1978 by being treated eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer.

(2.) No reply to the writ petition has been filed. On 25.3.92 this Court had directed that the writ petition deserves to be decided in the light of the judgment in G. C. Mathur's case. Last opportunity was given to file reply within ten days. Further Opportunities were given on 6.4.92 and 17.4.92. Notwithstanding this, the reply has not been filed by the respondents.

(3.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the experience gained by the petitioner prior to his passing A.M I.E. is accountable for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of G. C. Mathur (supra), of which reference has been made here in above. The learned Deputy Government Advocate could not point out any feature which distinguishes the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the case of G. C. Mathur.