CHANDMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Chandmal Jain challenging the validity of the order of his reversion from the post of Office Superintendent Grade Ii in the Collectorate, Bundi, (Annexure -9 on record). The petitioner has also challenged the panel Annexure B, prepared by the Revenue Board, Rajanhan for the appointment of Superintendents Grade II in the various Collectorates in Rajasthan.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the District Board of Sawaimadhopur in the year 1951. From 24 -1 -55, his services were transferred to the State and he was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Treasury Office of Kota. The petitioner continued as Upper Division Clerk till he was appointed as a Stenographer cum -Clerk on 13 2 -59. From 14 -2 59 he was appointed as a Stenographer Grade III in the pay scale of 120 -8 -160 -10 -250 in the Office of the Board of Revenue after due selection under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial. Staff Rules, 1957, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules'. The petitioner joined his appointment, as stenographer Grade III on 14 -2 -59 The petitioner continued to serve as Stenographer Grade III in the various officers and was eventually transferred under an order of the Board of Revenue dated 11 -4 -63 in the same capacity in Collectorate at Bundi. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred as Stenographer Grade III to the Collectorate, Chittorgarh. He was again transferred to the Collectorate, Bundi by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1 -8 -67. The Collector of Bundi appointed the petitioner to officiate as Office Superintendent in his office on 15 -7 -69 vice one Shri Moti Shanker Jain who had retired. By order of the Revenue Board, Annexure -9, one Shri Ramchandra Nyati, an Assistant in the Office of the Collectorate, Chittorgarh, he was appointed as Office Superintendent Grade II in the Collectorate Bundi and in consequence the petition? was reverted. The petitioner grievance is that while he was eligible for appointment to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules, Shri Nyati, respondent No. 4, was not eligible, On 24 -9 -63, therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court challenging his own reversion as well as the appointment of Shri Nyati. The petitioner, inter alia, contended tnat with the abolition of the posts of Divisional Commissioner, with effect from 1 -6 -61 the Government issued an order for conferment of powers of the erstwhile Divisional Commissioners on the Collectors and the Revenue Board respectively as per the order. According to para 5 of the order, all powers of making appointments including officiating appointments which hitherto vested in the Divisional Commissioners were delegated to the Collectors of the District concerned. Further it was directed that for the appointments of Office Superintendents Grade II in the Collectorates the Board will draw a panel of eligible Upper Division Clerks and other ministerial staff for the State as a whole on the basis of seniority -cum -merit and the Collectors concerned will select candidates for the post of Office Superintendents strictly in the order in which the names appeared in this panel. It was also laid down that the transfers of Office Superintendents from one District to another was to be made by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner made grievance that till then the Board had not made any panel and, therefore, for this reason also the appointment of Shri Nyati as Office Superintendent Grade II in rhe Collectorate, Bundi was bad.

(3.) NO fresh reply was filed by the State to the amended writ petition.