DEVI LAL SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has laid this writ petition by way of invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the impugned order dt. 07.03.2011 (Annex. 10) passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur. Being aggrieved from the omissions and commissions of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner as LDC on the strength of circular issued by the Industries and Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan dt. 30.10.1973 (Annex. 1), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal. In the memo of appeal, it was inter -alia alleged by the petitioner that at the threshold of his service career, he was appointed as Nakedar on 01.04.1969 and therefore his case is liable to be considered for absorption as LDC on the strength of conditions laid down in Circular Annex. 1. While contesting the appeal on behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the four corners of the circulars issued by the State Government i.e. Annex. 1 & 2 respectively, and as such he is not entitled for any relief. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions, rejected the appeal.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, Mr. Parmendra Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has misconstrued the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on some of the decisions of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4718/2008 (Ram Gopal Chouhan vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on February 6, 2009) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9480/2009 (Shanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 28.04.2011). Substantiating his argument on the basis of these legal precedents, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.