AKHTAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-6, being dated 7/30.10.1992, and has also prayed for a direction to make determination of vacancies in terms of Rule 9 of Rajasthan Services of Engineers and Allied Posts(Public Health Branch) Rules, 1968, herein after to be referred to as the rules.

(2.) The allegations of the petitioner are, that he possesses the academic qualification of diploma in Civil Engineering, that he came to be appointed as Sub Engineer, vide order dt. 7.9.1965, and was confirmed as such. It is alleged that on completion of 14 years of service, he becomes eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineer.

(3.) Then it is alleged, that vide order Annexure-2 dt. 19.11.1979, the petitioner was promoted temporarily on the post of Assistant Engineer for a period of four months, or till duly selected candidates are made available. In this list Annexure-2, the petitioner's name finds place at S.No. 27. Further case of the petitioner is, that thereafter, there was a regular determination of vacancies, and meeting of D.P.C. was convened, which considered the candidature of the petitioner also, and accordingly, vide order dt. 20.2.1982 Annexure-3, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioner, the expression used being temporary/officiating is of no consequence, and cannot alter the nature of the promotion, as Annexure-3 specifically recites, the promotion to have been made under Rule 25, of the Rules. It is then alleged, that thereafter a final seniority list of Assistant Engineers was published, being Annexure-4, wherein petitioner's name finds place at S.No. 77. Then, review D.P.C. appears to have been convened, for the vacancies of the year 1973 to 1981-82, and a further D.P.C. for the vacancies of the year 1982-83 to 1991-92. According to the petitioner's information, the vacancies of all these years were clubbed together, and one D.P.C. was held, which is violative of Rule 9 and Rule 25(11-A), and has brought about discrimination. It is then alleged, that on the recommendations of review D.P.C., the order dt. 13.9.1992 has been issued, making promotions of certain persons as Assistant Engineers, which order has been produced as Annexure-5, wherein the petitioner's name is not included, while the persons finding place at S.No. 123 onwards, of Annexure-4, have been promoted. Then, vide order Annexure- 6, the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted, on the post of Sub Engineer, on the ground, that the recommendations, in his case, is kept in sealed cover. It is alleged, that there is hardly any occasion for keeping the recommendations in sealed cover, because he became due for promotion much prior to charge-sheet, apart from the fact, that mere service of charge-sheet, cannot be a fate accompli, for a person. It is also contended, that he was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1982, therefore, now he cannot be reverted in the garb of pending disciplinary proceedings. Regarding charge-sheet, it is alleged, that the petitioner was placed under the suspension, vide order dt. 28.7.1984, and despite it being revoked, vide order dt. 19.2.1986, he was served with a memorandum, and charge-sheet dt. 5.2.1986, being Annexure- 8. However thereafter, an order was issued on 29.5.1990, being Annexure-7, under Rule 18 of the C.C.& A Rules.