BHAGWAN DAS Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 25.8.1974 and confirmed on 30.7.1977 with effect form 25.6.1976. On 2.9.1988 a seniority list of Lower Division Clerks was drawn up in respect of the period 1966 -86 and the petitioner figures therein at S. No. 104 Annex. 1 on record. 175 Lower Division Clerks were promoted vide order Annex. 2 dated 24.9.1988. The promotion was denied to the petitioner. There was a charge against the petitioner of way back of the year 1981 Annex. 3 where the allegation pertained to the year 1979 that he had retained Rs. 150/ - for a period of 12 days for which he has explained that the sme could not be adjusted as the account had not been furnished by the conductor. The Enquiry Officer was appointed in the year 1982 and nothing proceeded further till date. It is further said by the petitioner that he could not be deprived of his promotion simply on the ground that an enquiry was pending against him and even if it be accepted on its face value, then too if would be a minor penalty and promotion could not be refused to him in the situation where the test and criteria is seniority -cum -merit. The grievance of the petitioner is that several persons from S. No. 105 onwards have been promoted in preference to him and he has been discriminated against and has been denied his legitimate due. Representations were made in this respect to the respondent Corporation, which are Annexs. 5, 6 and 7 on record. The petitioner prays that he be ordered to be promoted as Upper Division Clerk form the date the persons next to him in the seniority of Lower Division Clerks were promoted with all consequential reliefs and further prays for quashing of the enquiry in pursuance of Annex. 3.

(2.) IN reply, it has been averred by the respondent that the besis for promotion is of coures seniority -cum -merit and it is done by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.P.C.). It is admitted that the persons junior to the petitioner were given promotion and the petitioner as denied because the D.P.C. did not find him fit for promotion and the test laid down in the Regulations of the year 1965 where academic qualifications, experience, tact, energy, intelligence, integrity and previous record of service have to be considered and it was after consideration of these factor the D.P.C. did not find it fit to promote the petitioner Regarding Enguiry it is said that the charge -sheet was served in the year 1981 and the enquiry is pending.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has passed on the file stated to be containing the deliberations of the D.P.C. a photostat copy whereof has been placed on the record and I have marked it as Annex. C -1 A look at it shows that against the name of the petitioner at S. No. 104 it is written in pen Ink 'Not fit for promotion' and in column No. 9 it is stated that enquiry in respect of charge -sheet dated 11.12.1981 is pending.