LALIT KISHORE SHARMA Vs. CHARIMAN RAJ KHADI ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT intra -court appeals have been filed by the Board and so also by the respondent in writ petition, jointly assailing order of learned Single Judge dt. 20.09.2012 directing the Board to hold meeting for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) against the vacancies determined as on 01.04.1995 and consider candidature of the respondent (writ petitioner) in accordance with Rules as it was invogue at the time of determination of the vacancy. The brief facts which in nut -shell emerges from the material on record and relevant for present consideration are that under the scheme of Rules existing prior to the Rules, 1977 notified on 15.11.1997, the post of Inspector (Coop.) -I and Accountant were the feeder post for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) and as per the schedule appended to the Rules, seven years experience on the post of Inspector (Coop.) and Accountant and in addition to it as regards the Accountant training in cooperation was the condition of eligibility for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative). Indisputably there was no training ever conducted by the Board and the respondent promoted as Accountant much before the appellant as Inspector (Coop) -I and the vacancy of Development Officer (Cooperative) was determined as on 01.04.1995 for promotion by the Board.

(2.) IT further reveals from the records that the respondent was promoted on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 24.12.1987 and the appellant Lalit Kishore Sharma the respondent before the learned Single Judge was promoted as Inspector (Coop) -I on 29.02.1988 and there was no interse seniority list prepared by the Board and the appellant was promoted as Development Officer (Cooperative) vide order dt. 20.02.1996 and that came to be challenged by the respondent by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge in July, 1998 and his sole grievance was that training was never conducted by the Board and being senior to the appellant in the feeder cadre as such his right of fair consideration for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) has been denied by the Board while the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) was filled vide order dt. 20.02.1996 and the learned Single Judge after examining the materials on record observed that if the Board failed to conduct the training for Accountant which was considered to be the condition of eligibility for an incumbent for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative)), indisputably the respondent (petitioner) before the learned Single Judge being senior in the feeder cadre and promoted as Accountant on 24.12.1987, his right of fair consideration for promotion on the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) has been denied to him and accordingly directed the Board to conduct DPC and consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) against the vacancy determined as on 01.04.1995.

(3.) IT has also come on record and which could be noticed by us that the appellant board after 1996 amended the service Rules and notified on 15.11.1997 namely the Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board Employees Service Rules, 1977 and under the amended schedule appended thereto the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) became available only for Inspector (Cooperative) having five years experience on the post and as regards the Accountants they were provided a separate channel of promotion but here before us is the consideration for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) against the vacancy determined as on 01.04.1995 prior to the amended schedule came into force and thus it goes without saying that the Rules as invogue has to be applied when the vacancy of Development Officer (Cooperative) was determined and indisputably the Board has not considered the candidature of the respondent primarily on the premise and the defence which has come on record that he was not holding training in cooperation as Accountant which makes him ineligible and to be considered for promotion but this contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge holding that when the Board failed in discharge of its obligation holding training (cooperation) and considering the incumbent as ineligible for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Cooperative) was unjustified and the incumbent has been deprived of his fair right of consideration.