DAYA NAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE a common challenge has been made to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the posts of Tehsildar which that has led to non -selection and consequential reversion of the petitioners, these petitions are being decided by a common order.

(2.) IN brief, facts of writ petition No. 31/94 Daya Nand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are that the petitioner had joined service as Naib Tehsildar on being appointed on that post by order dated, 21.9.85 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in pursuance of selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was confirmed as Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 29.5.88. His name was placed at serial No. 98 in the seniority list of Naib Tehsildars issued on 6.4.90. On 29th June, 1990, he was posted as Tehsildar. The Departmental Promotion Committee which met in 1990 recommended petitioner's promotion as Tehsildar against the vacancies of 1990 -91 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee the Board of Revenue issued order dated, 12.3.91 promoting the petitioner as Tehsildar against the year 1990 -91 on a temporary post. His promotion was described as officiating. Some of the persons who had been promoted alongwith the petitioner including one Shri Sewa Ram Swami, who was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Naib Tehsildar, were confirmed as Tehsildar by an order dated, 26.11.93 of the Board of Revenue. As far as the petitioner is concerned, order dated 21.12.93 (Annex.8) has been issued by the Board of Revenue reverting the petitioner from the post of Tehsildar to that of Naib Tehsildar in view of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Consequential order for his posting has been issued by the Collector, Bhilwara on 24.12.93. By order dated, 18.11.93 32 persons have been promoted as Tehsildars because the Departmental Promotion Committee has included their names in the list which is subject to review and revision. These 32 persons have been promoted for a period of one year or till the next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee.

(3.) PETITIONER has pleaded that the sole cause for his reversion is the order of punishment passed on 30.9.93 by the Collector, Bhilwara. His submission is that the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in the year 1993 'for making recommendations for promotion against the vacancies of the years 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94 has arbitrarily considered the punishment imposed on him by order dated, 30.9.93. His plea is that once he had been promoted as Tehsildar against the vacancy of 1990 -91 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, it was not open to the Departmental Promotion Committee of 1993 to once again consider his candidature. Petitioner has further pleaded that in any case, the punishment imposed on him by order dated -30.9.93 or even the inquiry initiated by memo dated 27.7.93 could not have been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee which met for making recommendations for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94. Petitioner has also questioned the legality of the order of punishment dated, 30.9.93.