STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this Special Appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated, January 21, 1997 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5752/95. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Before the learned Single Judge, that part of the order dated, January 19, 1995 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, was under challenge whereby the appellants were directed to review the case of respondent No. 1 herein, for grant of selection scales under Order/Circular dated, 25.1.1992 keeping in view observations and findings made in the order after examining his suitability.

(2.) THE controversy relates to interpretation of the Government Order/Circular dated, 25.1.1992. The factual aspect giving rise to the present appeal may be narrated, which is as under: The Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Enforcement Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur vide order dated. 22nd August 1973. He was posted in the office of the District Supply Officer, Bikaner. Thereafter, he was confirmed on the said post vide order dated, 17.8.1981. The State Government has issued an Order/Circular dated, 25.1.1992 to grant selection scales in lieu of promotion to the employees who completed 9, 18 and 27 years of satisfactory service. By the Circular the benefit of selection grade was given to the employees in Class -IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts. The order was passed in supersession of all orders issued in this regard in the past. The salient features of the Order/Circular, as described therein, are as under:

(3.) MR . Mahesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that the date 25.1.1992 is the cut off date for granting benefit of Selection Scales on completion of 9,18, 27 years and as such, this date is relevant for scrutinising preceding record to judge suitability of an employee, Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the view taken by the Service Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge is not sustainable.