MAHENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner, who is in service of the department of lrrigation Jaipur Zone Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on the post of Munshi Gr. l since 1. 11. 1977 in pay scale No. 6 of 950-1680 as prescribed for the Work-charged employees who are governed by the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964, has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that notwithstanding his position as Senior Munshi Grade-1 as per his seniority position as reflected from seniority list dated 18. 4. 1991 (Vide Annexure-11) after having been declared permanent Store Munshi Grade-1 in accordance with Work charge Rules, 1964, his candidature for the change of cadre from Store Munshi's to that L. D. C. 's has been ignored by the respondents in contravention of the Rajasthan Subordinate Staff Ru-les, 1957 (for short "the Rules of 1957" ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that after his initial appointment he was made semi permanent work charged employee by order dated 1. 5. 1980 and then was posted at Som Kamble Amba Project, Dam-Sub-Division Dungarpur, but the respondents have been taking work from him on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the recruitment cell because he did also possess the requisite academic qualification. It is also his case that pay scale of 950-1680 prescribed for Munshi Gr. l work charged imployees is equal to the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk and therefore, Devi Singh, respondent No. 5 who was initially appointed as work charged employee in May, 1982 as Munshi Gr. II in pay scale of 800-1250 (scale No. 3) in the office of the Additional Chief Engineer of lrrigation, Jaipur Zone, was appointed by order dated 1. 11. 1990 (Annex. 5) on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pay scale of 950-1680 at basic pay of Rs. 950/-by the department -respondents, whereas he was not appointed as Lower Division Clerk despite the fact that he was senior to Devi Singh. THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment order dated 1. 11. 1990 (Annexure 5) of respondent No. 5 declaring it null & void and against that post, the petitioner has claimed his appointment as LDC w. e. f. 1. 11. 1990 alongwith seniority. THE contention of the petitioner is that his candidature was ignored by the respondents in making selection and giving appointment to respondent No. 5 and two others namely; Madan Lal Choudhary and Mahaveer Singh Poonia who were both appointed as L. D. Cs vide (Annexure-10) dated 2. 7. 1991.

(3.) THE respondents have further contended that though the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 3 months and thereafter continued in service as per exigency of the work in the projects of the lrrigation Department and he was declared Semi-permanent on the post of Munshi in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1964, the duties which the petitioner has been performing on the post of Munshi cannot be equated to the post of Lower Division Clerk and hence the case of the petitioner cannot be equated to that of respondent No. 5 since he was subjected to face selection process and after adjudging his suitability, the selection committee had recommended his appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk to which he was appointed in accordance with the amended Rules.