MANOHAR NAGORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Manohar Nagora, the petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is by caste a Khatik which is a Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Archivist, by order dated 12th July, 1977 after regular selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. This post of Archivist is now designated as Puralekh Adhikari. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post of Archivist by order dated 4th Oct, 1982 The next post higher to that of Archivist is that of Asstt. Director of Archives. The post of Asstt. Director of Archives forms part of the Rajasthan Archives Service. The recruitment to the posts in and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Archives Service is regulated by the Rajasthan Archives Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules'). Under (he Schedule lo the Rules, recruitment on the post of Asstt. Director, Archives is to be made 100% by promotion from amongst Archivist/Research Officers. The qualifications and experience prescribed under the Rules for such promotion is M. A. IInd Class in History or Sanskrit or Philosophy and experience of 5 years on the post of Archivist or Research Officer after regular selection. Originally there were two posts of Assist. Director of Archives. By order (Annexure 4) dated 29th Sept. 1982, on temporary post of Asstt. Director of Archives was created upto 28th Feb. 1983 from the date, the said post was filled in. The case of the petitioner is that the additional post of Asstt. Director of, Archives was required to be filled from amongst Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as per roster prescribed under Art. 16(4) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is further that on 29th Sept. 1982, the date on which this additional post of Asstt. Director, Archives was created, the petitioner had completed 5 years service as Archivist and he possessed the requisite qualifications and experience for promotion on the post of Asstt. Director of Archives. The petitioner has stated that for extraneous reasons his name was omitted for being considered for the purpose promotion to the post of Asstt. Director of Archives and that one Dr. Gyan Chand Sharma, respondent No 4, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe was being considered and was likely to be given promotion on the said post. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition wherein he was prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2. namely the State of Rajasthan and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and that in case the DPC meets, and without considering the case of the petitioner recommends any person for such an appointment be quashed.

(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and another reply has been filed by respondent No.4. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it has been stated that the post of Asstt. Director of Archives which was created vide order dated 29th Sept. 1982 is a vacancy for the year 1982-83 and the petitioner is not eligible for promotion on the said post under the Rules, because the petitioner did not have the requisite experience of five years as Archivist on 1st April, 1982. In the said reply it has also been stated that the newly created post of Asstt. Director of Archives is to be filled in from amongst the members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes provided such a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications and experience as laid down in the Rules, as amended and since the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite experience of 5 years as Archivist as on 1st April, 1982, his case does not fall within the eligibility one. In the said reply it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was considered, but since he failed to fulfil the requisite qualifications and experience, the said post was converted to general category.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid reply. Additional affidavits of Brij Lal Asstt. Director who is officer-in-charge in the case dated 30th Oct., 1983 and 6th Nov., 1985 have also been filed on behalf of respondents Nos 1 to 3.