MURARILAL Vs. RSEB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed:

(2.) The petitioner passed B E. (Tele-Communication) from the Birla College of Engineering. Pilani in the year 1961. He was appointed as Junior Engineer by order dated March 1, 1962 by the Chief Engineer-cum-Technical Member of the Rajasthan Electricity Board (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Board'). He joined the said post on March 14, 1962. The appointment was on temporary basis. Subsequently, he was temporarily promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer by order elated Nov. 15, 1962 of the Chief Engineer-cum-Technical Member of the Board. The Board, by its order dated Sept. 17, 1964, approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and regularised the promotion of 50 Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioner, thus. stood confirmed and his name was shown at serial No. 14. The petitioner has filed the order of confirmation marked as Ex 2. The combined final seniority list of Assistant Engineers approved by the Board was published on Sept. 1, 1970 and the petitioner's name was mentioned at serial No. 76 in the list (Ex. 3) The petitioner has stated that he was neither appointed as junior Engineer (Tele-Communication) nor was he promoted as Assistant Engineer (Tele-Communication). The petitioner met the Deputy Secretary (Establishment) of the Board on Aug. 21, 1971 and at that time he was told that his name could not be considered for promotion for the post of Executive Engineer as his qualification wan B.E. (Tele-Communication) and that he is only eligible to be considered when the post of Executive Engineer (Tele Communication) is created. Thereafter, a representation was submitted on Sept. 24, 1971. It is said that that representation was not heeded to and the Chairman of the Board, by his order dated Dec. 23, 1971 promoted 11 Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers. The order of the promotion has been filed by the petitioner marked as Ex. 4 After passing of the order dated Dec. 23, 1971, the petitioner sought interview with the Chairman of the Board and requested for promotion, but he was informed that his name was not considered for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer as he was B.E. (Tele-Communication). Thereafter, another representation was submitted on Dec. 31, 1971. A fresh representation was submitted on Jan. 5, 1972 through his advocate by the petitioner, but no reply was received by him. Though the representations were pending before the Chairman, he promoted respondent No. 6 as Executive Engineer on an ad hoc basis for eight months in Jan. 1972, who was much junior to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his name was not considered for promotion while promoting respondent No. 6 to the post of Executive Engineer. It is stated by the petitioner that for seeking justice, he met the Chairman on April 30, 1972 and told him that the Assistant Engineers junior to him were being given ad hoc promotions and his case is not even being considered. The Chairman of the Board, according to the petitioner, refused to reconsider the matter and told him that unless the post of Executive Engineer (Tele- Communication) is created, he could not be promoted. The petitioner has challenged the ad hoc promotions on various grounds and he has prayed for the reliefs mentioned here in above.

(3.) The principal defence is that the matter of the petitioner was long considered & he was apprised that he could not be considered for the post of Executive Engineer because he did not fulfil the requisite qualification, & that he could only be considered for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) when ever it falls vacant subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions necessary for the post. It was also averred that the ad hoc promotions to respondents Nos 2 to 10 were perfectly in accordance with the Regulations as they were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive, Engineers. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder and additional rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1. In the additional rejoinder, it was, inter alia, prayed that the orders dated May 14, 1973 and May 26, 1973 may be quashed.