MAHAVIR PRASAD PANCHOLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Mahavir Prasad Pancholi challenging his fixation in the Municipal Service constituted under the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules 1963, vide order Ex. 4 dated 15-5-69.

(2.) THE petitioner entered service in the Municipal Board, Kota as a Taxation Officer in the grade of Rs. 100-5-150-EB-10-200 on 28. 6-51. In 1953, the post of Taxation Officer was re-designated as Revenue Officer. The grade allowed to the petitioner with effect from 1-4-53 was Rs. 120-5-150-15/2-240 vide order of the State Government dated 23-4-57. The Kota Municipal Board was raised to the status of the Municipal Council from 17-10-59 and the petitioner's post was designated as Revenue Officer, Municipal Council, Kota. The question of integration of Revenue Officers in the Municipal Service was taken up. The petitioner submits that on 31-3-60, which is the crucial date for purposes of fixation in the integrated set up, he was holding the post of a Revenue Officer in A Class Municipality and consequently he was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Revenue Officer, Grade I in the Municipal Service. The petitioner submits that on 15-1-66 a provisional seniority list of officers of the Rajasthan Municipal Service was published under Rule 43 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 and in it he was shown as a Revenue Officer, Grade I. It was also mentioned therein that his appointment was effective from 1-4-53, that his existing class was No. 1 and likewise the class allotted to him was also No. 1 Municipality. The same position was restated in another seniority list published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 18-8-66 (Ex. 2) under the heading " Technical Officers", but when the final list Ex. 4 was published the petitioner was shown as a Class II Revenue Officer. The petitioner's grievance is that he was eligible for appointment as Revenue Officer Class I, but has been considered only for the post of a Revenue Officer Class II in the integrated set up and there had been denial of equality to him. The petitioner had irapleaded a number of respondents. Respondent No. 3, Shri Khushmizazi Lal, respondent No. 5, Shri D. C. Sharma, respondent No. 7, Shri Shanker Singh and respondent No. 8, Shri Sudha Chand Ojha were represented by Shri C. L. Agarwal and today at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not pressing the writ petition against these respondents. Respondents No. 4, Shri V. D. Vyas, respondent No. 6, Shri Bachna Ram, respondent No. 9, Shri Laxman Singh Shekha-wat respondent No. 10, Shri P. C. Gupta, respondent No. 11, Shri Ramsharan Joshi. and respondent No. 12, Shri Manzoor Ahmed Azizi were sailing in the same boat as the respondents represented by Shri Agarwal. All these respondents were Executive or Administrative Officers and were not integrated as Revenue Officers. The petitioner has no legal right to question their integration. The only respondents who were Revenue Officers at the time of integration were Shri Mohanlal Sharma, respondent No. 14 and Shri Chaitanya Giri, who is said to be officiating as Executive Officer Class I. Thus, the matter falls to be considered vis-a-vis these respondents,

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan. Respondent Shri Mohanlal Sharma has not chosen to appear.