BHANWARA RAM Vs. GANPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These special appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated Aug. 10, 1990 by which the writ petitions of the petitioner-respondents (No. 1) have been allowed and it has been ordered that they (petitioners) be placed above respondents Nos. 3 to 17 in the seniority list, they are entitled to be promoted on the post of U.D.C. from the date their juniors have been promoted and an opportunity will be afforded to them to take up the examination for the post of Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiners and on their success they will be promoted as Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner from the dates their juniors have been promoted, if they fulfil the eligibility condition, educational qualifications and their service record is otherwise clean and unblemished.

(2.) The facts of the cases are identical and may be summarised thus. In the year 1975, 18 posts of lower division clerks were sanctioned by the State of Rajasthan to clear the arrears of the paper-book section of the Rajasthan High Court. The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur issued advertisement and invited applications from the candidates possessing requisite qualifications to appear in the typing test. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners (respondent No.1 of both the appeals) appeared in the typing test, they stood at Nos. 4 and 9 in the merit list and were initially appointed till Feb. 29, 1976 vide order dated Jan. 9, 1976 (Annexure 2). Their services were extended from time to time. They were finally confirmed with effect from Feb. 2, 1981. The respondents Nos. 3 to 17 of both the writ petitions (including the appellant Bhanwara Ram) were appointed on the post of lower division clerk during the period from March 4, 1977 to Jan. 16, 1980 and were confirmed earlier than the petitioners. They submitted several representations but with no avail. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and the respondent No.4 Bhanwara Ram (appellant in these special appeals) filed his separate reply, seriously opposing the writ petitions. The other respondents did not contest the writ petitions. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge held the Honourable Chief Justice has power under Rule 17, Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (In short 'the Rules') to relax any of its provisions, he relaxed the condition of holding written examination for the recruitment to fill up the 18 posts of lower division clerks in view of the urgency, accordingly their recruitment on the posts of lower division clerks was regular and was not against any rule. He also held that the assignment of seniority on the basis of the date of confirmation being a fortuitous circumstance was not legal. He further held that the respondent No.4 (appellant) Bhanwara Ram was not entitled to get his previous service rendered in the Education Department counted for the purpose of seniority as he himself applied in the High Court, appeared in the typing test and joined the service in pursuance of the appointment order issued to him and he did not seek his transfer from the Education Department to the High Court.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Bhanwara Ram that the learned single Judge has seriously erred to hold that the appointment of the petitioners Heera Lal and Ganpat Singh on the posts of lower division clerks was regular and the Honourable the Chief Justice had power to grant relaxation under Rule 17 of the Rules. He also contended that the facts and circumstances of Direct Recruiting Class II Engineers Officer Asso. Vs. State of Mah., 1990 (2) JT 264: are quite different and distinguishable and the law laid down in it was not applicable in the present cases. He further contended that the appointment of the petitioners was adhoc, it was upto Feb. 29, 1975 and for such a case no relaxation could be granted under Rule 17 of the Rules by the Honourable Justice. He lastly contended that the appellant Bhanwara Ram was already serving in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan prior to his appointment in the High Court and the learned single Judge seriously erred to hold that his service rendered in the Education Department cannot be taken into consideration while fixing his seniority.