AMAR NATH PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case in hand has a chequered history.

(2.) Certain facts which need to be noted are that appellant joined as LDC in Commercial Taxes Department on 29/01/1965. While he was working as LDC, he had proceeded on one month's leave on 23/06/1969. Respondent No.4 (Shyam Sunder Misra) was appointed against the leave vacancy of the appellant on the said date. Later on, respondent No.4 was transferred on the appellant having joined back to Kota office and thereafter to the headquarters. The appellant was confirmed on the post of LDC on 12/09/1969. Respondents No.4 to 6 are juniors to the appellant. While appellant was posted in the office of Commercial Taxes Officer, Group-D, Jaipur, the respondents No. 4 to 6 were promoted as Upper Division Clerks (UDC) at the headquarters vide order dt. 18/06/1981. The appellant assailed the order of promotion by preferring an appeal bearing No.578/1981 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur pointing out that while he has been denied promotion, the persons junior to him & appointed later in point of time have been promoted by the head office on the post of UDC wrongfully. It was his case that the seniority list of LDCs was being maintained zone wise and separate seniority list of head office was being maintained which had resulted in the said anomaly and the seniority list ought to have been prepared department wise and not district wise or zone wise. He relied on judgment passed by the Tribunal in the case of Nanak Ram Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Appeal No.1016/1979) where the appeal of the said Nanak Ram was allowed by the Tribunal holding seniority list to be drawn department wise.

(3.) The respondents after notices appeared and pointed out that the department had been maintaining two different seniority lists, one at the headquarters' level and the other at the zonal level and since the appellant was not working at the headquarters, he could not have been promoted and there could not have been lis in between the appellant and the respondents as the respondents are working at headquarters. It was further pointed out that under Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rules of 1957'), the appellant could claim his right of seniority and promotion in the zone where he was confirmed. He could not compare his seniority with respondents No.4 to 6 who were employed at head office/headquarters.