HAJARI VISHNU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reversion order dt. 31.08.2006 (Annex.P/8 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu and the order dt. 19.06.2006 (Annex.P/9) passed by the Dy. Director (Administration), Local Bodies, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2.) IN this case, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector when he was working on the post of U.D.C. vide order dt. 18.09.1992 (Annex.P/2). The said order was purely on temporary basis till confirmation by the D.P.C. The said promotion order was declared illegal and thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of U.D.C. vide order dt. 17.09.1993, issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu on the basis of the order issued by the Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur dt. 25.08.1993. The petitioner challenged the order dt. 17.09.1993 by way of filing revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 before the Director, Local Bodies, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Director, Local Bodies vide order dt. 20.01.1994 (Annex.P/6) has set aside the order dt. 17.09.1993 and it was specifically ordered that the Municipal Board, Mount Abu shall fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment and promotion in accordance with the Rules after determination of the vacancies and till then status quo was ordered to be maintained.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged both the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner is working since 1992 on the post of Revenue Inspector and without assigning any reasons and treating his promotion as illegal, he has been reverted without any notice. Further, it is submitted that according to the rules, the petitioner was eligible for promotion against the quota on the post of Revenue Inspector, therefore, the respondents were under obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Director vide order dt. 20.01.1994 and promotions were to be made after determination of the vacancies as ordered by Director but it has not been done, therefore, the respondents have illegally reverted the petitioner while treating his promotion as illegal.