NARAIN LAL DEOPURA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order of the learned Single Judge (K.S. Sidhu, J.) dated 17th February, 1984 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had challenged the order dated 24th July, 1980 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur(here in after referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowing the appeal filed by Shri Rameshwar Dayal Bhartari, respondent No, 2 against the orders dated 26th October, 1978, 11th November, 1978 promoting Lokesh Kumar respondent No. 5 on the post of Excise Inspector Gr. -I and the order dated 11th December, 1978 promoting respondent No. 5 on the post of Asstt. Excise Officer. The Tribunal while not setting aside the said orders directed that the of respondent No. 2 vis -a -vis respondent No. 5 and other seniors, if eligible, shall be considered according to the Rules and according to the same principles which were decided by the Court in the case of respondent No. 5.

(2.) IN the Excise Department there were three grades of Excise Inspectors, namely, Excise Inspector Grade III, Excise Inspector Grade II and Excise Inspector Gr. -I. The next post higher to that of Excise Inspector Gr. -I is that of Asstt. Excise Officer. The posts of Excise Inspector Grade I, II and III were subordinate service posts. Prior to the promulgation of the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1974 (here in after referred to as ('the Subordinate Service Rules') vide notification dated 30th May, 1974 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 6th June, 1974, appointment to the said posts was governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the 1960 Rules'). The post of Asstt. Excise Officer forms part of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) and appointment to the said post is governed by the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 (here in after referred to as 'the Excise Service Rules').

(3.) SINCE respondent No. 2 was senior to respondent No. 5 in the cadre of Inspectors Grade II, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the aforesaid orders dated 26th October, 1978, 11th November, 1978 and 11th December, 1978, with regard to promotion of respondent No. 5 as Inspector Grade I and Asst. Excise Officer. The appellant was not impleaded as a party in the said appeal, but the Shri K.L. Arora who had been promoted as Inspector Grade I by order dated 12th March, 1976 and was senior to the appellant in the cadre of Inspector. Grade I, was allowed to intervene as an intervener in the said appeal by the Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal of respondent No. 2 was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 24th July 1980. The Tribunal rejected the objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation and held that a new situation had arisen as a result of the orders passed in favour of respondent No. 5 and that respondent No. 2 was entitled to challenge those orders on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as respondent No. 2 being senior to respondent No. 5 had a right to challenge the orders of promotion of respondent No. 5. The Tribunal further held that according to the decision of this Court, consideration of respondent No. 5 for promotion had to be done according to the Rules which implied consideration according to the procedure i.e., eligibility, seniority etc. and that the order of promotion of respondent No. 5 was not strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court as necessary provisions of the service rules had neither been followed nor the Government had considered his case according to the seniority vis -a -vis others nor the provisions for making promotion had been adhered to, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to quash the orders that were impugned by respondent No. 2 in his appeal, but directed that the case of respondent No. 2, vis -a -vis respondent 5 and other seniors, if eligible, shall be reconsidered according to the rules and according to the same principles as decided by this Court in the case of respondent No. 5.