IGYAR DASS VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought the relief of mandamus and prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him on the post of LDC from the date his juniors have been given such promotions with all consequential benefits.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee by the Collector, Pali, (respondent No. 2) by his order dated 3.12.1977 (Annex. 1) and was posted in Tehsil Pali. Thereafter, he was made a substantive employee vide order dated 5.1.81 (Annex. 2) w.e.f. his date of initial appointment i.e. 3.12.1977. He passed the Rashtra Bhasha Kovid Examination of the Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha in the year 1980 vide certificate Annex. 15 and passed the Secondary School Examination, 1981 in English subject from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan vide Annex. 16. At that time, the Rashtra Bhasha Kovid certificate was recognised equivalent to Secondary Examination in Hindi subject. As the petitioner had the requisite qualification equivalent to Secondary Examination and acquired more than five years experience, he was held to be eligible for promotion as LDC, hence the respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 26.2.1983 (Annex. 3) called him for interview for the post of LDC. But at that time, he was not promoted. After the derecognition of Rashtra Bhasha Kovid Certificate, the petitioner after procuring the necessary permission appeared in the Secondary School Examination, 1988 in all subjects conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and passed the same vide Annex. 5. The respondent No. 2 published a final seniority list (Annex. 4) of Class IV employees of Pali District wherein petitioner's name appears at S. No. 127. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application dated 26.3.1990 (Annex. 6) to the respondent No. 2 through the Tehsildar, Sojat praying for his promotion as LDC. Thereupon the Collector by his letter dated 27.3.90 and 2.4.90 Ex. 7 and Ex. 8 respectively intimated him that as per the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the promotion of Class IV employees to the post of LDC, he should appear in typing test on 5.4.90. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and represented that there was no rule for taking the type test for the promotion on the post of LDC amongst the class IV employees but the latter was adamant to take the typing speed test and therefore, the petitioner refused to appear in the said test. The petitioner also made representation to the Government about the said action of the Collector, Pali. Thereupon the Assistant Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (DOP -A, Group II) by his letter dated 11.4.1990 (Annex. 9) informed the Collector, Pali that under Rule 7(1)(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 (in short 'the Rules 1957) there was no provision for taking the typing test of the Class IV employees for the promotion to the post of LDC and reiterated that a class IV employee, who possesses five years experience of substantive service and has the requisite qualifications has to be given promotion to the post of LDC on the basis of seniority. But despite the letter Annex. 9, petitioner's case was not considered and he was not promoted on the post of LDC, while person junior to him namely Vishnulal, whose name appears at S. No. 140 in the seniority list (Annex. 4) was promoted vide order dated 15.5.1990 (Annex. 10). The respondent No. 2 again promoted Sarva Shri Narayna lal, Mangal Puri, Hemraj and Prakash Chand whose names appear at S. No. 128, 131, 139 and 150 respectively in the seniority list (Annex. 4) and who were admittedly junior to him and one more person namely Durga Shanker, whose name even did not appear in the said seniority list were also promoted on the posts of LDC by his office order dated 8.7.1990 (Annex. 12). The petitioner has, therefore, alleged that the action of the respondent No. 2 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him on the post of LDC from the date his juniors have been given such promotions.

(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder has reiterated that since he had put in more than five years service and possessed the requisite academic qualifications and was senior, he become entitled for being consider for promotion on the post of LDc since the year 1982.