PREM RATAN ACHARYA Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing the order Ex. 2 reverting him from the post of Office Superintendent Grade II to the post of Head Clerk. He has also prayed that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 3 to 18 in accordance with the regulation No. 23 framed by the Electricity Board. It has also been prayed that till the seniority list is finally issued the respondent B and may be restrained from acting upon the tentative seniority list Exs. 3 & 4. The material facts giving rise to this writ petition stated briefly are as under: - The petitioner entered the Government service as Lower Division Clerk on 28.6.43 in the Civil Supplies Department of the erstwhile State of Bikaner. After serving on various posts the petitioner came to be appointed by promotion as Naib Tehsildar, Civil Supplies on 1.1.1948. The Civil Supplies Department came to be closed down and the petitioner was declared surplus on the post of substantive Upper Division Clerk. Consequently the petitioner's case was referred to the Absorption Committee which absorbed the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk in the erstwhile Electrical and Mechanical Department, Government of Rajasthan on 1 -4 -57. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board came to be constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the petitioner who was holding the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Electrical and Mechanical Department was placed at the disposal of the Board on deputation by the Government of Rajasthan as was done in case of employees situated in the like manner. The petitioner continued as Upper Division Clerk in the Board till 10 -1 -59. In the year 1959 Selection Committee was constituted by the Board for making selection to the next higher post of Head Clerks. This Committee invited applications from eligible candidates and the petitioner applied for the post. The Selection Committee, however, according to the petitioner, by mistake did not send an interview call and proceeded to make the selection without considering the case of the petitioner. Eventually in the year 1966 the petitioner was selected on the post of Head Clerk on substantive basis by the Selection Committee The petitioner was then appointed as Head Clerk by an order dated 25.4.1906. The petitioner continued on the post when the petitioner by an order dated 20 -11 -1970 was promoted as officiating office Superintendent Grade II on ad hoc basis with effect from 2 -5 -1970. The petitioner continued to officiate on the post till 10 -9 -1971 when he was reverted from that post to the post of Head Clerk.

(2.) The petitioner's case, put in brief, is that he was not considered by the Selection Committee in 1959, that his order of reversion being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is bad in law and is void and that it is incumbent upon the Board to finalise the seniority list and till the same is not finalised the Board should not act upon the tentative seniority list namely, Exs. 3 and 4.

(3.) The Board has filed a return. In the return the Board has taken the stand that the petitioner's grievance regarding he being not considered by the Selection Committee in the year 1959 is not sustainable in law as he was not at all eligible then for the post of a Head Clerk. It has been further stand by the Board that no exception can be taken to the petitioner's reversion as it is in no way violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as has wrongly been contended by the petitioner in his petition. The Board has submitted in this behalf that no person junior to the petitioner has been retained on the post of an Office Superintendent Grade II even in the officiating capacity. It has been lastly contended by the Board that the seniority list is being framed on the basis of preferences given by the Selection Committee to the various persons in course of selection and not as in accordance with the regulation No. 23.