RAJASTHAN STATE COOPERATIVE UNION Vs. K.S.CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2001. Since all the appeals raise common grounds of challenge, thus appeals were heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners/non-appellants preferred a writ petition challenging the order of promotion of Shri B.S. Soyal promoting him to the post of Assistant Cooperative Education Officer (for short 'the ACEO') and amendment dated 15.10.1994 amending Rajasthan State Cooperative Union Employees' Service Rules, 1982 (for short 'the Rules of 1982'). A further challenge to the orders dated 11.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 was also made. By these two orders the post of Publicity Officer held by the petitioners/non-appellants was abolished and the petitioners were reverted to the post of Lecturer. The writ petition so preferred by the petitioners-non-appellants was allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) Matter in dispute mainly pertains to the promotion to the post of ACEO. Prior to 15.10.1994, the aforesaid post was to be filled from and amongst eligible Project Officer and Public Relation Officer. The criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. An amendment in the Rules of 1982 was proposed by the Administrator of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Union (in short 'the Cooperative Union'). The proposed amendment was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 15.10.1994 and on the same date, DPC met and recommended promotion based on the amended Rules. As per the amended Rules, a candidate holding the post of Principal was made eligible for promotion and at the same time criteria for promotion was changed from seniority-cum-merit to merit alone. As result of the amendment in the Rules, Shri B.S. Soyal was also considered for promotion amongst other eligible candidates including few candidates holding the post of Principal and as B.S. Soyal was found to be meritorious candidate by the DPC, he was granted promotion. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners to challenge the various orders already indicated. Based on those challenges, learned Single Judge formulated certain questions for its decision and all those questions were thereafter answered in favour of the non-appellant-petitioners.