GOM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioners have challenged circular dated 17.2.1998 (Annexure -1), more specifically condition No. 4(1), 5 and 11. Apart from the challenge to the circular dated 17.2.1998, the petitioners have further sought directions for promotion to the post of Fisheries Development Officer by utilizing direct recruitment quota for promotion and lastly a relief has been claimed pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the post of Fisheries Development Officer is filled 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of recruitment. As per the avenue of promotion provided under the Rules, the post of Fisheries Development Officer is filled from the post of Assistant Fisheries Development Officer. The petitioners having been recruited on the post of Assistant Fisheries Development Officers, have neither been promoted nor granted selection scale which otherwise to be the scale of the promotional post, despite completion of 9 years of service. Referring to para 2 of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the seven petitioners were recruited from time to time as indicated in the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the circular dated 17.2.1998, if a promotion is provided to a post in different cadre/service, then on completion of 9 years of service, selection pay scale is granted as provided under Para 5 of the circular dated 17.2.98. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the pay scale otherwise admissible on promotion is being denied even on completion of 9 years service because the promotional post of Fisheries Development Officer is in the State service. Thus, petitioners were provided pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 on completion of 9 years of service instead of pay scale of 8000 -13500. The validity of circular dated 17.2.1998 is precisely 3 challenged on the ground that despite various judgments of Supreme Court, the respondents have not provided pay scale of promotional post or avenue of promotion to the petitioners and thereby they are facing stagnation.

(3.) REFERRING to the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there also, the post of Commercial Taxes Inspector Gr. I was treated as dead and thereby the promotion on the higher post was provided from the post of Commercial Taxes Inspector Gr. II. It is thus canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the present case also, the direct recruitment quota is not being filled since long, thus treating it to be dead, the post should be filled by way of promotion.