CHANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed a Traffic Inspector in the Transport Department on 7-9-1960. On 8th Oct. 1960, he was posted in the State Roadways in the same capacity. He was confirmed on that post w.e.f. 11-8-1965, upon his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner Respondent A.N. Diwan was also similarly confirmed.

(2.) When a separate corporation of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, all the employees of the Transport Department who were working in the Roadways Wing were placed on deputation as a temporary measure with the said Corporation w.e.f. 1-10-64. Later on, as allowed, he gave his option to return to the Transport Department but when he was relieved from the Corporation, the State Government declared him a surplus employee and sent his case to the Absorption Committee. The said Committee by its order sated 24-12-66, posted him as Moor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department which was a post equal to that of the Traffic Inspector. The petitioner contends that that Director of Transport expressed his inability to absorb the petitioner on the said post and there upon, the Absorption Committee amended its order on 26.12.66 and directed his absorption as a Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector. On 29.12.66 the Director, Transport also wrote a letter to the Absorption Committee that their is no post of Motor Vehicles Inspector vacant in the department & as such the petitioner could not be absorbed as Motor Vehicles Inspector. The petitioner was then posted as Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector on 7.3.67. The petitioner expected that as soon as the post in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector falls vacant, the petitioner would be promoted in that post. When a vacancy occurred, it was not the petitioner but it was one Laxmi Nath Sharma, respondent No. 3 who was appointed as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on ad-hoc basis on 27-10-1969. Shri Laxmi Nath Sharma is since then dead and use need not pursue the controversy in respect of him. One more vacancy fell vacant and this time also it was not given to the petitioner and instead, respondent No. 4, A.N. Diwan was appointed as Motor Vehicles Inspector on 7-2-70. The petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4. Diwan was junior to him as he was only an Officiating Traffic Inspector when he was a confirmed Traffic Inspector. Even according to the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963, the post of the Traffic Inspector should have been filled only by promotion from amongst the Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4 and therefore, ought to have been promoted as Traffic Inspector.

(3.) The petitioner, now, challenges the appointment No. 4 and also claims seniority over him. He has also prayed that the State Government be directed to create a supernumerary post in accordance with Rule 7 to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969.