INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 2. 6. 1999 passed by the respondent State of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of L. D. C. as his promotion/appointment on the post of Assessor has been found to be illegal by the judgment of this court, rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/95, Inder Singh vs. State.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1984 in the Municipal Board, Nagaur. He was appointed as an Assessor by the order of the Municipal Board dated 7. 8. 1995. However, the Chairman of the Board by order dated 23rd Sept. , 1995 can- celled the said order, as in his opinion, it was not in accordance with the rules. THE said decision was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition before this court which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/95. In reply to writ petition, it was pointed out that the Board, which passed the resolution for appointment of petitioner as Assessor, passed number of illegal orders while departing on completion of its terms on 27. 8. 95, which were corrected by the newly elected Board. It was also pointed out that the order dated 7. 8. 95 promoting the petitioner on the post of Assessor was beyond the resolution of the Board dated 1. 8. 1995 and recommendation to Director, Local Self Government dated 7. 8. 95 as petitioner was to be given only addition work of Assessor, in addition of his duties as L. D. C. Various contentions were raised including that even in the cadre of L. D. C. , there were persons senior to the petitioner. THE learned Single Judge (Coram Shri P. P. Naolekar J.) rejected the petition by order dated 29. 11. 95 holding that the order of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner was in accordance with law as his promotion was ab- initio void being in disregard of the Act and the Rules. While dealing-with the contention as to the requirement of following the principles of natural justice, the court held that rule of natural justice is not required to be followed in a case where the order, on the basis of which a right is claimed, is ab- initio void being contrary to law, rules or regulations governing the field. THE learned Single Judge, after examining the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, hereinafter referred- to as `the Act' and the rules framed thereunder viz; the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred-to as `the Rules of 1963', held that the channel of promotion for the post of Assessor is the Executive Officer of Class V Municipality or Revenue Inspector with five years experience. THE court in terms held that in accordance with the Rules of 1963, a L. D. C. cannot be promoted to the post of Assessor. THE petitioner carried the matter in appeal. It was defective appeal being presented on the court fee of Rs. 2/- only instead of Rs. 100/ -. THE appeal was, therefore, deficit of court fees of Rs. 98/ -. On 9. 1. 97, petitioner submitted an application that he wants to pursue the grievance before the Government and, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue the grievance before the State Government. On that application, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the grievance before the State Govern- ment. It appears from the order dated 15. 3. 97 (Annex. 2) that the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Government under Section 300 of the Act. A reading of the order does not show if the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Revisional Authority the fact that he had challenged the order dt. 23. 9. 95 by way of filing a writ petition before this court, whereby his appointment on the post of Assessor was cancelled. THEre is no reference of the High Court proceedings in the order either before the Single Bench or the Division Bench. THE petitioner cited an unreported decision dated 3. 2. 1994 rendered in Satish Chand vs. State (1 ). On the basis of that order, the Hon'ble Deputy Minister Shri Mangla Ram Koli, held the order dt. 7. 8. 95 appointing the petitioner as Assessor, as legal and valid. Accordingly, he set aside the order dated 23. 9. 95. THE Hon'ble Minister also accepted the resolution of the Municipal Board dated 7. 8. 95 for creation of the post of Assessor. THE said sanction was given for the period 7. 8. 95 to 15. 2. 97. It was also made clear that the resolution of the Board dt. 1. 8. 95 promoting the petitioner as Assessor be treated as an appointment by way of direct recruitment. THE Hon'ble Minister was further pleased to treat his appointment as from the date of his joining as Assessor i. e. 8. 8. 95 and to give all consequential benefits and seniority. It was subsequently noticed that the said order has been passed by the Hon'ble Minister in ignorance of the order of this Court and, as such, by the impugned order dated 2. 6. 99, petitioner had been reverted to the post of L. D. C.

(3.) IT is next contended that by order dated 15. 3. 97, the Deputy Minister treated the petitioner's appointment by way of direct recruitment, as such the jud- gment of this court in earlier petition has no relevance. The contention is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Once this court has found the case of petitioner, that of promotion and returned the finding thereon, it can not be side tracked by the Minister, or petitioner or his learned counsel, just by saying that judgment of the High Court has no relevance. The petitioner has ventured to take off, considering the order of Hon'ble Minister a firm strip, ignoring the existence of judgment of this court giving a casual reference the ill advised flight has to be shot down firmly. IT is the obligation of the court to ensure that the courts verdict is respected. In Sanjiv Datta's case (9), the Apex Court observed thus: ``the court's verdict has to be respected not necessarily by the author- ity of its reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct designed to or suggestive of challenging this crucial balance of power devised by the Constitution is an attempt to subvert the rule of law and an invitation to anarchy. ''