TARA SINGH GEHLOT Vs. SNEHLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6. 2. 2004 by which the learned counsel Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside order dated 8. 8. 1989 (Annex. 3) by which the appellant-non-petitioner 2 was promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the office of the District Judge, Jodhpur and also set aside the order dated 9. 8. 1991 (Annex. 5) by which the High Court, in administrative side, rejected the appeal of the respondent No. 1 petitioner. The learned Single Judge further directed respondent No. 3 (non-petitioner No. 2) the District Judge, Jodhpur to consider the question of giving appointment to the petitioner to the post of Senior Personal Assistant by considering the comparative merit of the petitioner and non-petitioner no. 3 and in case very one being found equal then to give weightage of seniority to the petitioner after excluding the weightage of experience gained by the appellant non-petitioner on the post for consideration. The learned Single Judge further held that in case the petitioner is found suitable and appointed in place of respondent No. 3, the consequential benefits should be awarded to the petitioner except cash benefits until actual promotion is made.

(2.) BRIE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 petitioner (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) was appointed as Stenographer Gr. II vide order dated 7. 5. 1977 (Annex. 1) by the District Judge, Jodhpur. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer Gr. I cum Personal Assistant vide order dated 22. 7. 1985, however, the promotion was made with effect from 18. 7. 1985. Copy of the order is Annexure 2. A post of Senior Personal Assistant was created in the office of the District Judge, Jodhpur and the appellant (non-petitioner No. 3 in the writ petition (hereinafter referred as non-petitioner No. 3), was promoted to the said post vide order dated 8. 8. 1989 (Annex. 3 ). The petitioner being aggrieved against the order of promotion of non-petitioner No. 3, preferred appeal before he High Court in administrative side which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 9. 8. 1991 in the administrative side. Copy of this order is placed on record as Annexure -5 and has been challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) A detailed rejoinder was filed by the petitioner respondent no. 1 to the reply filed by the High Court and the District Judge. The learned Single Judge, after examining the record, the ACTs of all the three candidates as well as record of the appointing authority and the appellate authority, including the representation made by the petitioner-respondent No. 1, observed that the comparative merit examined by the learned District Judge does not show any where any comparison of the ACRs and on what basis one is found to be superior to another. After rejecting the plea on the ground of limited scope of judicial review in such matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 6. 2. 2004.