MANAKCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common question and as such it would be proper to dispose them by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioner Manakchand Jain came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by promotion, on the basis of the recommendation of the Depart mental Promotion Committee. How ever the petitioner Umraosingh came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by direct recruitment, after he was duly selected by the Rajastan public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed on probation by the order of the Board of Revenue (hereinafter called 'the Board') dated December 5, 1959. Thus, both the petitioners came to be appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars in a substantive capacity and were duly confirmed on the said posts on the expiry of the period of probation.

(3.) THE contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the two petitioners are that the petitioners were subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of their promotion to the posts of Tehsildars, which was in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also argued by their learned Counsel that the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Tehsildars by the order dated July 9, 1971 on probation and on the expiry of the period of probation they stood automatically confirmed en the said posts, as no order was issued extending their probationary period nor they were reverted to the posts of Naib Tehsildars on 'he expiry of the period of their probation from the posts of Tehsildars. It was urge -d that the reversion of the petitioners now on the posts of Naib Tehsildars would amount to reduction in rank and that there was no justification for the so called procedure of review.