JAGMOHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition for writ a direction for respondents is claimed by the petitioner to promote him as Executive Engineer (Civil) from the date persons junior to him in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) were promoted.

(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 1966. An appointment was given to him as Assistant Engineer on 28.02.1978 as a consequent to his direct recruitment on the post concerned through Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the seniority list published by the respondents relating to the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) dt. 06.02.1992 name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 164. The respondents in accordance with the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1954") made promotions of Assistant Engineers (Civil) as Executive Engineers (Civil) against the vacancies for the year 1993 -94 under an order dt. 07.02.1994. By the order aforesaid the respondents promoted few of the persons junior than the petitioner including Shri B.V. Soni whose name was at Serial No. 186 in the seniority list dt. 06.02.1992. The respondents also made promotions to the post of Executive Engineers (Civil) against the vacancies pertaining to the year 1994 -95 but this time too promotion was not given to the petitioner as he was facing a disciplinary proceeding under R.16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Being aggrieved by the super cession as stated above, this petition for writ is preferred.

(3.) THE contention of counsel for the petitioner is that under the Rules of 1954 the criteria for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) is seniority -cum -merit and merit with the ratio of 1:1, therefore, the respondents while considering candidature of the petitioner under the criteria of seniority -cum -merit should not have compared merits of the persons coming within the zone of consideration. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that there was nothing adverse to the petitioner on the basis of that promotion could have been denied to him.