KAPURA RAM Vs. JALORE CENTRAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is seeking a direction to set aside the Order dated 4.2.2002 (Annx. 9) as well as Order dated 24.7.1985 (Annx. 5) and the Order dated 24.7.1985 (Annx. 6) so far as it relates to the respondent No. 2, vide which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and he was reverted back to be post of Clerk-cum-Cashier while 7 other persons were promoted to the post of Officer Grade D(i) by D.P.C. respectively, with a further prayer to promote him on the post of Officer Grade D(i) on regular basis w.e.f. 24.7.1985 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) As per the facts detailed in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent-Bank on 21.1.1981. In the seniority list dated 13.10.1983, the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 20 and the respondent No. 2- Jagdish Kumar Jeengar at Serial No. 22. The petitioner was promoted on 8.4.1985 as Officer Grade D(i) (Branch Manager) on ad-hoc basis but was soon reverted back to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on 24.7.1985 and simultaneously, by an order of even date, 7 other persons were promoted to the post of Officer Grade D(i) by D.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order of reversion by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1529/1985. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation and the respondent-Bank was, accordingly, ordered to decide the same within a stipulated period. However, the said representation was rejected on 4.2.2002, which is impugned herein as Annexure-9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the Administrator-cum-Collector, Jalore, who further directed the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law but the respondent-Bank did not comply with the directions of the Collector forcing the petitioner to approach this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is, therefore, twofold, firstly, as per the rules applicable to the petitioner, 60% of the posts of Officer Grade D(i) is required to be filed by Clerk cadre, out of which 50% is by seniority-cum-merit and another 50% is by merit. 02 posts were to be reserved for S.C. category against vacancy at 1st and 7th of the roster point. Therefore, first post was required to be filled by seniority-cum-merit and the second post was to be filled by merit. The respondents, however, filled up only 1 post and that too on merit basis ignoring the seniority. Secondly, the said promotion of the respondent No. 2 is not only against the rules but arbitrary and unjust as the petitioner is both senior and meritorious vis-a-vis respondent No. 2.