JITENDRA SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGA SUGAR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was holding the post of Manager in the year 1990 and as per Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited Staff (Recruitment & other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 (for short as "Rules of 1996"), the post of Senior Manager is to be filled up 100% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit and merit in the ratio of 1:1.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that vacancies in the cadre of Senior Manager were assessed and a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short as "DPC") was convened on 2.4.98 for considering promotion on the post of Senior Manager against the vacancies of the year 1998-99 and recommendations were made for making promotion for four posts of Senior Manager. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, name of one Vishal Singh was kept in seal cover on account of pendency of departmental enquiry against him and name of petitioner was placed at S.No. 1 in the reserved list. Vishal Singh was promoted to the post of Senior Manager vide order dated 25.6.99 and it is alleged that one Sh. S.N. Pandey who was working on the post of Senior Manager in the respondent Mills, retired in the end of Feb., 1999. The petitioner is claiming promotion against this vacancy on account of retirement of Sh. S.N. Pandey. Another DPC was convened for making promotion on the post of Senior Manager against the vacancies of the year 1999-2000. Said meeting was held on 23/23.12.99 but no promotions were made on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC which met on 23/24.12.99. DPC was again convened on 12.1.01 for filling up two posts of Senior Manager but again no promotions were made. Again on 21.3.2001, the DPC was convened for considering the matter of promotion for four posts but again no promotions were made. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 15.12.99 followed by another representation dated 7.7.2000. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given promotion due to pendency of the enquiry against him which was initiated by serving charge-sheet dated 22.4.98 and 5.5.98. It is also submitted that petitioner was exonerated in both the proceedings. According to petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted report as back as on 28.9.99 and 30.9.99 after finding out that no charge is proved against the petitioner. But the orders to drop the proceedings were passed on 22.11.01 and 10.4.02. The petitioner again submitted representations to the respondents but the respondents instead of giving promotion to the petitioner informed the petitioner that files relating to promotion on the said post are not available and petitioner was asked to give information about the said files.

(3.) The net result is that the petitioner could not get the promotion for which according to the petitioner, he was entitled w.e.f. 1.3.99 against the vacancies of year 1998-99 or alternatively w.e.f. 1.4.99 against the vacancies of the year 1999-2000.