KANTILAL Vs. LOCAL BODIES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the petitioner is about the failure of the respondent, Municipal Board to determine year-wise vacancies in the cadre of Nakedars and consequential non-promotion of the petitioner on the post of Nakedar. He has also prayed for quashing of the order for promotion of non-petiton No. 3., Laxman Lal and has prayed that he may be ordered to be promoted as Nakedar w.e.f. 27.4.81 and be given all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Sub- Nakedar in the service of the Municipal Board, Bundi after regular selection. The order dated, 12.5.73 was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, appointing the petitioner and four others as Sub-Nakedars. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Bodies Subordinate Service Commission in pursuance of an advertisement No. 4/75. On that basis an order dated, 24.4.76 was issued by the Administrator of the Municipal Board, Bundi. In the provisional seniority list dated 15.5.82, the name of the petitioner has been placed at serious No. 4 in the category of Sub-Nakedars. The name of non-petitioner No. 3, Laxmanlal has been shown at serial No. 5. According to the petitioner, without considering his case the Municipal Board promoted Laxman Lal on the post of Nakedar by an order dated, 15.2.86. He represented to the authorities of the Municipal Board and higher authorities against this promotion. He also filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner against this promotion. The revision petition has however, been rejected on 14.10.88. The petitioner has stated that although it is obligatory for the competent authority to make year-wise determination of vacancies in accordance with Rule 10 of Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate Minister Service) Rules, 1963, there has been a total failure in the present case so far as yearwise determination of vacancies is concerned. The result has been that notwithstanding availability of clear vacant post in the cadre of Nakedars, the petitioner has not been promoted.

(3.) No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the non-petitioners. On 20th July 1992 this Court had made a clear that last opportunity is given to the non-petitioners to file reply,despite that reply has not been filed.