DEV DUTT VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed that the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee recommending name of respondent No. 3 for the post of Director, Government Press may be declared to be invalid and the respondents may be forbidden from giving effect to the recommendations of the D.P.C. and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Director of the Printing and Stationery, Government of Rajasthan.

(2.) PETITIONER obtained a Diploma in printing Technology from Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner came to be appointed for the post of Printing Foreman and was posted at Government Press, Alwar. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of General -Foreman in the year 1967. Then the post of the Superintendent and of Assistant Superintendents in Government Presses were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post and he was duly selected in the year 1971 and was appointed on probation for a period of two years. He was confirmed on the post of Superintendent, Government Press vide order dated 15th February, 1974. The seniority list of the Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents was circulated vide order dated 29.6.1989 wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 2 and the name of respondent No. 3 at item No. 3. He has also submitted that the respondent No. 3 was only selected for the post of Assistant Superintendent. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the respondent No. 3 was promoted on the post of Superintendent on 19th January, 1976.

(3.) THE writ petition has been contested by the State as well as by the respondent No. 3. State has filed its reply and has taken the plea that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and for that a decision was taken by the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for misconduct under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. It is alleged that final chargesheet is likely to be served on petitioner after requisite sanction is received. The Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the service record decided to keep the recommendation with regard to the petitioner in sealed -cover and person next to him the respondent No. 3 was provisionally selected on the review and revision basis. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 3 would have been appointed on the post of Director, Government Press but petitioner filed this petition, and obtained the stay order from this Court against the implementation of the recommendations of the DPC. Meanwhile, respondent No. 3 has also superannuated.