JAI RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seniority list dated 9/12/1994 by which petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.6.

(2.) Shri R.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was initially appointed in the Indian Army on 26/6/1962 as Rifle Man. He was later on discharged from Indian Army after completing service of 7= years on 17/11/1969. When the Government of Rajasthan constituted a Battalian of R.A.C., petitioner applied and got selected for the post of Constable on 9/2/1970. The said battalion was raised for the Indo-Pak War and the Bangladesh Operation. Petitioner participated in both the events. Petitioner was also awarded excellent remarks in his APARs. While working with the respondents, petitioner along with various other persons was promoted on the post of Head Constable on recommendation of duly constituted selection board. This was because of his outstanding service record. Selection was held after taking the written test and the interview and thereafter the result was declared. Along with the petitioner, name of respondent No.6 Munshi Singh also appeared in the select list. Name of the petitioner was at Sr.No.11 in the select whereas name of respondent No.6 was at Sr.No.12 thereof. They were both promoted vide order dated 8/7/1971. Petitioner was senior to respondent No.6 as he was appointed on 9/2/1970 as Constable therefore he was assigned seniority at Sr.No.11. Besides, petitioner was having excellent service record whereas respondent No.6 was a member of para military force (CRPF). Respondents subsequently constituted 7th Battalion of RAC and members of the 7th Battalion including petitioner were sent to 10th Battalion in the year 1972. This Battalion was engaged to tackle the law & order situation in Mezorum, Agartala and Manipur. Petitioner submitted representation against the said transfer while he was posted at Izol. Many of his juniors including respondent No.6 were given the benefit of qualifying promotion cadre course which was mandatory requirement for promotion on the post of Head Constable and were promoted and made substantive on that post. Since there was no such facility available at Izol in the State of Mizorum, petitioner was deprived of this opportunity. Petitioner submitted representation against assignment of higher seniority to respondent No.6. Copies of the orders dated 4/12/1978, 27/3/1979 and 19/9/1981 are on record. Besides this, it is contended that petitioner was sent to Jodhpur from Manipur for appearing in the Promotional Cadre Course (P.C.C. Course) with four other persons vide order dated 14/6/1978 and subsequently he was transferred to Jaipur in 3rd Battalion on 18/7/1978. He joined at Jaipur. Respondent No.6 was treated as senior to the petitioner because respondent No.6 in earlier point of time passed the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Platoon Commander in the year 1988 ignoring claim of the petitioner. Petitioner has produced the seniority list of 1984 in which his seniority was at Sr.No.682 whereas respondent No.6 was kept at Sr.No.323 and one Jagroop Singh, who was also junior to the petitioner, was kept at Sr.No.336 thereof only for the reason that petitioner passed the Promotion Cadre Course late, which was contrary to the order dated 8/7/1971 whereby both, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 were promoted on the earlier promotion post. Respondents have issued seniority list on 9/12/1994 of the post of Head Constable wherein petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.6. It was argued that petitioner could not appear in the Promotion Cadre Course because of transfer to Izol and on that basis he cannot be made to suffer.

(3.) Shri R.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was not at fault if he was not allowed to appear in the Promotion Cadre Course held in the year 1972. Petitioner made number of representations for holding such Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable but he was permitted to clear the same in the year 1979. Copies of representations dated 7/8/1996, 4/12/1978, 27/3/1979 and 21/3/1979 are on record. It is submitted that when petitioner was sent to Jodhpur from Jodhpur from Manipur vide letter dated 14/6/1978, Principal of Jodhpur Training College of the police department declined permission to the petitioner to appear in the Promotion Cadre Course saying that there was no requirement of qualifying the Promotion Cadre Course for ex-army personnel as they are already trained and he accordingly sent letter to the respondent-department. It is contended that some of the persons who were promoted as Platoon Commander earlier than petitioner are much junior to him. Requirement for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander is that candidate may have completed seven years as Head Constable and that petitioner was serving as Head Constable since 1971 onwards and therefore he will become eligible for promotion soon upon completion of seven years. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rules 29 and 30 of the Rules of 1974 and Rules of 1989, persons from same batch and board should have been allowed to complete their PCC Course for the same batch at a time.