BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is a Graduate in Agriculture and was initially appointed as a Food Assistant in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan on Oct. 17, 1956 in a temporary capacity in the pay-scale of Rs. 100 - 200. He was transferred to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on March 27, 1957 and his appointment to the last-mentioned post was approved by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and thereupon the term of his appointment on the post of Agriculture Extension Officer was extended by the order dated April 27, 1959. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Agriculture Extension Officer by the order dated Sept. 1, 1966 with effect from Oct. 28, 1963. But later on, by a subsequent order dated April 22, 1971, the confirmation of the petitioner on the aforesaid post was made effective from April 7, 1960.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the position assigned to him in the combined interlaced seniority list of Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing) dated April 22, 1971. The petitioner has been placed at No. 161 in the aforesaid interlaced combined seniority list and the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 have been placed above him. According to the submission of the petitioner, the said respondents Nos. 3 to 60 could not have been assigned places higher to the petitioner in the aforesaid combined interlaced seniority list. Only three contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me in support of the aforesaid submission, although the writ petition is a very lengthy one and several grounds appear to have been taken therein.

(3.) The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the seniority assigned to the persons employed as Agriculture Extension Officers, Agriculture Assistants, Food Assistants, Farm Assistants and Field Assistants, in accordance with the decision arrived at under section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was final and as the petitioner was shown at serial No. 75 in the said list, his position in the seniority list could not have been disturbed subsequently. According to the petitioner, the said seniority list, issued under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act on Oct. 24, 1959, was prepared on the criteria of continuous length of service and the argument is that the seniority of the petitioner in the Subordinate Agriculture Service could not be revised subsequently. This contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the fact that the subsequent seniority list issued on April 22,1971 has not the effect of altering the inter-se position assigned to the persons included in the seniority list dated Oct. 24, 1959 including the petitioner. But the position assigned to the petitioner in the earlier seniority list of 1959 had to be modified because of the fact that the names of persons working on other Subordinate Agriculture Service posts had also to be brought into the last mentioned seniority list, while interlacing and preparing a combined seniority list for all Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing) personnel, which besides the aforesaid persons also included persons who were employed in Plant Protection, Soil Conservation, Marketing Organisation and other branches of the extension wing of the aforesaid service. There can be no disagreement with the submission of the learned counsel that the inter se seniority of persons who were included in the list prepared under section 115 (5) of the States Reorganisation Act could not have been disturbed but "there is no allegation in the present case that the position of any of the persons, who were included in the aforesaid seniority list of 1959, was disturbed or altered to the disadvantage of the petitioner, while preparing the new seniority list issued on April 22, 1971. If other persons, who were not included in the list prepared under section 115 (5) of States Reorganisation Act had also to be included, while preparing a combined seniority list of persons holding subordinate service posts in the Agriculture Department and for that purpose interlacing of persons holding various posts In the same cadre or cadres having the same grade became necessary, it cannot be said that the sanctity of the list prepared under section 115 (5) of the Act was in any manner violated. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had entered the service of the State only on Oct. 17, 1956, a few days before the States Reorganisation Act came into force on Nov. 1, 1956 and he was then employed only as a temporary Food Assistant and he was not holding any substantive appointment on the date of integration of Ajmer and Rajasthan Services on Nov. 1, 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act came into force. When a combined seniority list was prepared of the Rajasthan Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing), the petitioner was assigned a proper position in accordance with the criteria laid down in the relevant rules or in the absence of rules according to the criteria specified by the State Government by a notification. Thus, the petitioner has been unable to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him by the publication of the interlaced seniority list dated April 22, 1971 and as to how his seniority was affected to his prejudice by the interlacing of and the preparation of a combined seniority list of all Subordinate Agriculture Service personnel.