T S KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28. 2. 2007 Annexure-1 and to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion on the post of Director under the Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter for short, the Rules of 1979 only) after relaxing the requirement of experience. It is also prayed that if the petitioner is found suitable, he may be provided promotion to the post of Director from the date of order impugned Annexure-1 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) INITIALLY, the instant writ petition was filed by two persons namely T. S. Kapoor (present petitioner) and V. N. Mathur. Both the persons are working on the post of Additional Director of Regional Foreisic Science Laboratory, Udaipur and Jodhpur respectively. Later on, upon objection raised by the respondents, the petitioner No. 2 has made a request to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30. 10. 2007granted the permission to the petitioner No. 2 to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file fresh writ petition, if occasion so arise and if so required. Thereafter, amended cause title was filed by the present petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards second proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1979 under which the competent authority can recommend for promotion by relaxing the experience in case of non suitability of the eligible candidates. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Department of Personnel has passed an order dated 7. 11. 1975 whereby the direction was given for the purpose of making ad-hoc/urgent/temporary appointment of persons, who do not fulfill the conditions of eligibility of promotion. THErefore, in view of the fact that there are two posts of Additional Director in the entire State of Rajasthan and in the Department, the petitioner who was holding the post of Additional Director was hopeful that Departmental Promotion Committee will consider his case for promotion to the post of Director while relaxing the requisite experience as is permissible under the Rules of 1979. But contrary to the provisions of law, the respondent No. 3 was given special indulgence by the Government and contrary to the rules, he was provided re-employment for two years from the date of his retirement while observing in the order that none of the eligible and suitable candidates are available in the Department, therefore, Dr. B. B. Arora, who has been retired from service from the post of Director on 28. 2. 2005 is hereby granted re-employment for two years. As per the petitioner, this order has been passed in gross violation of the Rules of 1979. THErefore, the petitioner was very much entitled for considering his case for promotion as per his seniority and was entitled to get relaxation in the experience as provided under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1979 but without placing his case for promotion before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration, his candidature has been refused and straightaway by observing in the order impugned that no eligible candidate is available for promotion on the post of Director, respondent No. 3 has been reemployed for two years, therefore, Dr. B. B. Arora who was to be superannuated has been re-employed for two years. As per the petitioner, this re-employment is patently illegal and have no foundation to stand before eye of law. Moreover, it affects the future rights of the petitioner as such, re-employment of the non-petitioner No. 3 is totally unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules of 1979, therefore, the order impugned Annexure-1 may kindly be quashed.