SURENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Secretariat in the former State of Mawar prior to April 7, 1949. After the (sic) of the erstwhile State of Mewar to form the State of Rajasthan the petitioner was absorbed as a Lower Division Clerk, However, he was promoted at an Upper Division Clerk with effect from July 21, 1954 and was later confirmed as such by the order dated July 15, 1956. A seniority list of Ministerial Staff of the Secretariat, including Upper Division Clerks as on Oct., 1963 was published by the State Government on Oct. 23/24, 1963. The petitioner's name appeared at No 99 in the aforesaid seniority list.

(2.) The petitioner was thereafter promoted as an Assistant in the Secretariat on ad-hoc basis by the order dated June 30, 1967. In May, 1970 a Departmental Promotion Committed was constituted under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Secretarial Ministrial Staff Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1970 Rules') and the said Committee selected respondents Nos. 4 to 44 for promotion to the posts of Assistants in a substantive capacity. The very same Committee selected the petitioner for promotion to the post of an Assistant in an officiating capacity in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 25 of the 1970 Rules The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and on May 12, 1970 three orders were issued by the Sate Government By one of such orders respondents Nos. 4 to 35 and 43 and 44 were promoted as Assistants in a substantive capacity with immediate effect. By a second order issued on the same day, respondents Nos. 36 to 38 were promoted as Assistants in a provisional substantive capacity and by a third order issued on that very day, 15 persons including the petitioner were promoted as Assistants in an officiating capacity. By a subsequent order dated June 5, 1970, in accordance with the recommendation of the same Departmental Promotion Committee, respondent Nos. 39 to 42 were also promoted as Assistants (sic) a provisional substantive capacity. The respondents Nos. 4 to 28 and 43 and 44 were promoted on the posts of Assistants on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, while the respondents Nos. 29 to 42 were promoted as Assistants on the basis of merit, It is not disputed by the petitioner that respondents Nos. 4 to 28 as well as Nos. 29 to 31 and 43 and 44 were senior to him in the category of substantive Upper division Clarks, in accordance with the seniority list dated Oct. 23/24 1963 (Ex. 1).

(3.) The writ petition was amended in the year 1971 with the permission of the Court and the amended writ petition was filed by the petitioner on March 18, 1971. Subsequently, the name of respondent No. 43 was struck off, on the (sic) petitioner as he had retired from service The respondents have stated in their reply that the petitioner has since been promoted to the post of Sec. Officer, which is a higher post than that of an Assistant. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has today submitted copies of two orders showing that the petitioner was promoted as a Sec. Officer in an ad-hoc capacity by the order of the State Government dated July 28, 1971 and he joined the aforesaid post on the next day and further that thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee, constituted under Rule 25 of the 1970 Rules, selected the petitioner for promotion the post of a Sec. Officer and as a result thereof, by the order of the State Government dated Jan. 7, 1974 the petitioner was promoted as a Sec. Officer in a substantive capacity on seniority-cum-merit basis with immediate effect. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner must have been made substantive on the post of an Assistant, prior to his further promotion on the post of a Sec. Officer in a substantive capacity. However, the petitioner has not cared to disclose this fact in the writ petition inspite of his obtaining permission of this Court to amend the same. As the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of a Sec. Officer in a substantive capacity by the order of the State Government dated Jan. 7, 1974, it does not appear that any grievance subsists to the petitioner now, because the post of a Sec. Officer is the senior most post specified in group 'A' of Scheduled of the 1970 Rules.