DEENBANDHU PARMAR Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE MINERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13/1991 by which the claim of the appellant for substantive appointment on the post of Accountant has been rejected.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case reveals that appellant was appointed as a Time Keeper on 11.2.1970 in the respondent Corporation and thereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 1.1.1972. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 1.10.1972. Vide order dated 7th October, 1982, contained in Annex. 1 to the writ petition. The appellant was appointed as Accountant on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till a candidate duly selected by the Selection Committee was available, which ever was earlier. The appellant was promoted as Group Officer vide order dated 12.12.1990 contained in Annex 3 to the writ petition. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied, filed the writ petition asserting that though his appointment to the post of Accountant had been for a maximum period of six months as he was allowed to continue till 12.12.90 as Accountant, he was entitled for substantive appointment on the said post.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was neither possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Accountant nor he passed the tests as required under the said rules. Rule 14 of the said rules empowered the Managing Director to relax the educational qualification but no order granting such relaxation was ever passed in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dismissed the writ petition holding that after expiry of six months period, the appellant had no right to continue on the post and as he did not possess the requisite qualification and no relaxation order was ever passed in his favour nor the appellant had passed the departmental examination, he could not be held entitled for substantive appointment to the said post. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant preferred the instant appeal.