V.N. PANDE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Election Supervisor in the Election Department of the Government of Rajasthan, on his being selected for that post by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Subsequently, the post of Election Supervisor was redesignated as that of an Upper Division Clerk. It appears that some time later, the petitioner was transferred on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department of the State Government. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order dated July 22, 1958 appointed the petitioner temporarily as an Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Grade II in a purely temporary and ad hoc capacity The petitioner continued to hold the post of Inspector Grade II in the Commercial Taxes Department until he was reverted to the post of an Upper Division Clerk by the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Rajasthan, dated Feb. 15,1973. The reversion of the petitioner was brought about with immediate effect as directed by the aforesaid order dated Feb. 15, 1973 The petitioner's case is that he could not been reverted from the post of Inspector Grade II, which he was temporarily holding, without there being any valid reason for doing so and that it should be declared that the petitioner continued to hold the post of Inspector Grade II in the Commercial Taxes Department of the State inspite of the order of his reversion. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was reverted from the post of Inspector Grade II because the appointment of the petitioner on the said post of Inspector Grade II was made in violation of the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') and further the petitioner was over-age at the time of his aforesaid appointment as Inspector Grade II. It was also submitted that as the petitioner was holding the post of Inspector Grade II in a purely officiating ad hoc or temporary capacity, he had no right to the post.

(2.) It is not in dispute between the parties that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Inspector Grade II in the Commercial Taxes Department was governed by the provisions of the Rules. The learned Deputy Government Advocate was asked to point out the particular rule, which according to him was violated at the time when the petitioner was appointed as Inspector Grade II in a temporary capacity The only reply that was furnished by the learned Deputy Government Advocate was that the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules. There can be no dispute in that matter as it is not even the case of the petitioner that he was recruited on the post of Inspector Grade II in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17, but what has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel is that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on the post of Inspector grade II in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules. It was also faintly suggested by the learned counsel for the State that the junior-most post in the cadre of Inspectors in the Commercial Taxes Department was that of Inspector Grade III and the petitioner being employed in the ministerial service of the State as an Upper Division Clerk, could not have been appointed directly as an Inspector Grade II, which is a subordinate service post.

(3.) The posts included in the subordinate services, existing in the Commercial Taxes Department of the State are enumerated in Schedule II annexed to the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and there are three grades of Inspectors, included therein namely Inspectors Grade I, Inspectors Grade II and Inspectors Grade III, which are all subordinate service post. It may thus be said that the junior most post existing as the lowest ladder or the cadre of Inspectors in the Commercial Taxes Department is the post of Inspector Grade III, while the other two posts of Inspector Grade II and Inspector Grade I were senior posts as compared to the posts of Inspector Grade III. However, learned Deputy Government Advocate was unable to point out any Rule, order of notification by which the State Government or the appointing authority might have prescribed as to which of the posts of Inspectors in the Commercial Taxes Department would be filled in by direct recruitment and which of those posts would be filled in by promotion or which of them would be filled in by both methods of recruitment and in what proportion The proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules provides that the State Government at the instance of the appointing authority, shall decide which of the posts included in the subordinate service would be filled in by selection and which of them would be filled by promotion and in case it decides that some categories of posts are to be filled in both by selection and promotion, then the Government is also required to determine the percentage of recruitment, by either method. No decision of the State Government in this respect has been placed before me and in the absence thereof it is difficult to conclude that the posts of Inspectors Grade II were to be filled in entirely by promotion from the posts of Inspector Grade III and that direct recruitment under Rule 17 or temporary appointment under Rule 19 could only be made at the lowest ladder in the cadre namely, on the posts of Inspectors Grade III As a matter of fact, what rule 19 provides is that any vacant post, which is required to be filled in by direct recruitment, may be filled by the appointing authority temporarily by appointing thereto a suitable official eligible for appointment to the post concerned under the provisions of the Rules and under Rule 17 any subordinate service post could be filled in by direct recruitment, unless there is an order passed to the contrary by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7