PRABHU LAL SHARMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the above-named petitioner in the matter of Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 and in the matter of Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is a municipal employee serving under the Municipal Council, Kota respondent No. 1, joined the service of the Municipal Council at Kota w. e. f. 18. 6. 1968 as Sub-Nakedar. THE petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on ad-hoc basis initially for a period of six months or till the persons duly selected by the Public Service Commission are made available, vide order, dated 2nd March, 1976 vide Annexure 1. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that D. P. C. was convened on 13th June, 1978 for considering the cases of regularisation of the respective candidates and in accordance with Rule 26 of the Rajasthan (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 ( for short Rules of 1963 ). It will be pertinent to mention here that in view of his selection by the D. P. C. respondent No. 2 to 8 were also appointed as L. D. C. s. on probation for one year w. e. f. 1. 3. 1976 vide Annexure 3.

(3.) THE same position has been affirmed in reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, Satya Narain Vijay. This court has been informed that the validity of the seniority lists dated 20. 12. 78, 10. 7. 1984 and 1. 3. 1989 (impugned Annex. 5) had also been challenged by the petitioner before the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Kota and this fact has been suppressed from the knowledge of this court in the writ petition. This fact has been revealed in the reply to the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 in para 8 of the said reply. It was the duty of the petitioner to have clarified the position in this regard to this court in the writ petition itself and having already availed the remedy before Munsif Magistrate, Kota,it was not open to the petitioner to have simultaneously invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the final seniority list was prepared on the basis of date of confirmation instead of date of substantive appointment. Since the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis as L. D. C. w. e. f. 4. 3. 1976 and ad-hoc appointment cannot be treated as substantive appointment till a person has been confirmed on the said post. As per the meeting of the D. P. C. dated 13. 6. 1978 the petitioner was confirmed w. e. f. 13. 6. 1978 and hence his confirmation could not be \reckoned w. e. f. 4. 3. 1976 when he was promoted as L. D. C. on ad-hoc basis.