GOUS MOHD Vs. SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the recommendation made by the respondent-Municipal Council in its meeting dated 16.09.2013 (Annex.-14), recommending the name of the respondent No.6 for promotion on the post of Jr. Accountant and seeking direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Jr. Accountant with all consequential benefits. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Nakedar on compassionate ground in Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh on 20.07.1985. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Nakedar and after abolition of post of Nakedar, the petitioner was absorbed on the post of L.D.C. by order dated 28.08.2002. In the year 2006, the petitioner was directed to work in the Account Department, wherein he has been working since then. Based on the recommendation made by the Department Promotion Committee ('DPC') by order dated 21.12.2010, the petitioner was promoted on the post of U.D.C. w.e.f. 01.04.2006. It is claimed that during the course of time, the petitioner was directed to work as Accountant and was further given additional charge on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The petitioner having fulfilled eligibility for promotion to the post of Jr. Accountant, made an application in this regard for promotion, wherein the eligibility indicated for the post of Jr. Accountant is 5 years' experience on the post of U.D.C. working as an Accountant. The DPC also recommended the name of the petitioner vide Annex.-11, however, vide order dated 17.09.2013 (Annex.-14), the Promotion Committee of the Municipal Council, ordered for promotion of respondent No.6 as Jr. Accountant by indicating that he was working as UDC since 31.08.2005 and was working in the Cash Section and for the petitioner, he was directed to be promoted as Office Assistant.

(2.) It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.6 is neither eligible nor he was interested in getting promoted on the post of Jr. Accountant, inasmuch as, he himself made an application (Annex.-15) for promotion on the post of Office Assistant and the recommendation also was made for such promotion.

(3.) Submissions have been made that the requirement under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 ('Rules of 1963') is having experience of working as Accountant and as admittedly the respondent No.6 has only worked as Cashier, he cannot be termed as eligible for the promotion to the post of Jr. Accountant and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.