JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents as well as the pleadings of the parties on the record. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he was initially appointed in the State Service of Rajasthan in the erstwhile Ajmer State and had joined the State Road and Transport Department as a Traffic Inspector/Assistant Depot Manager after having been selected by R.P.S.C. against a permanent post in the year 1956. Subsequently in the year 1964, the Transport Department of the State Government was substituted by a Corporate body for short 'RSRTC' and on it's formation, the petitioner was declared surplus by the erstwhile department and opted for services in Jail Department and joined as a jailor on absorption by the G.A.D. on 18.7.68. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.79 and on the relevant date he was holding the post of Deputy Superintendent (Jail). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given due benefit of seniority as on the date when he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent w.e.f.; 19.7.79 with all notional pay fixation for the purpose of his pension and he had consequently challenged his promotional order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal vide appeal No. 836/80 and he also challenged the impugned order dated 3.9.80 before the said tribunal. The appeal of the petitioner-appellant was accepted by the learned tribunal vide it's order dated 21.3.84 with the following directions : 4. "When a person is considered for promotion with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from an earlier date his service record, eligibility and suitability are to be considered with a reference to that date. In other words for considering the appellant for promotion to the posts of Dy. Superintendent, Superintendent District Jail and Superintendent Central Jail his service record, eligibility and suitability would be taken into account with reference to 14.11.1970, 1.1.1971 and 27.3.1976 respectively, the punishments were awarded to him subsequent to three dates that is to say, they were awarded on 29.4.1977 and 10.1.1978. Obviously, these punishments would not come in his way while considering him for promotion with reference to 14.11.1970, 1.1.1971 and 27.3.1976 because on these dates there was no punishment. 5. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. 6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Obviously, these punishments would not come in his way while considering him for promotion with reference to 14.11.1970, 1.1.1971 and 27.3.1976 because on these dates there was no punishment. 5. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. 6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant within three months for promotion to the posts of Dy. Superintendents and Superintendents District Jail from the date his junior Shri Ram Deo Singh was so promoted and to the post of Superintendent Central Jail from the date next junior Shri Lekhram was so promoted. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits resulting from such promotions if given." 7. The obvious implication of the aforesaid order of the Learned tribunal was to the effect that the respondents were duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Dy. Superintendent/Superintendent District Jail from the date his immediate junior Rain Deo Singh was so promoted and subsequently he was entitled to be considered for promotion from the post of Superintendent District Jail to Superintendent Central Jail from the date his next junior Lekhram was so promoted with all consequential benefits resulting from such promotion. 8. During the course of hearing, Shri Ashok Gaur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that the aforesaid directions of the Learned Tribunal fixing the time limit of three months for implementation of it's judgment were not complied with by the respondents and as a result there of he had no option but to make series of representations and finally filed the instant writ petition in the Court on 19.11.92. 9. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner does not get a vested right to be considered for promotion from the post of Deputy Superintendent to that of Superintendent Jail in view of the fact that 'as observed by the review D.P.C., which was formed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as on 25.4.92 did not recommend the petitioner's case for promotion as against the vacancies for the years 1972, 1974 and 1976 on 16.1.79 in view of some wrong information, which was supplied to the D.P.C. that only 3 A.P.A.Rs. were made available before the D.P.C. for the entire period of 27 years of service, which the petitioner had rendered on the relevant date. Since the entire service record of the petitioner was not available before the D.EC., a review D.P.C. was formed and the petitioner was interviewed and was not found fit for the post of Dy. Superintendent Jails as against the vacancies of the respective years as referred to above and also against the vacancies of the year 1978. Keeping in view all the above mentioned facts, the D.P.C. after thoughtfully considering the entire service record pertaining to the aforesaid years did not deem it necessary to modify it's earlier decisions and the petitioner was not found fit for any further promotion as per the considered opinion of the review D.P.C. 10. During the course of hearing, Shri Khan, learned penal counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the Rajasthan Jail Service Rules 1959 (here-in-after referred to as the rules 59) and has contended at the bar that as per the schedule (Annexure-A) to the rules, the petitioner was not even eligible to be considered for promotion from the post of substantive jailor to that of Deputy Superintendent Jail, for which as per Column-5 of the State schedule, the minimum requirement is that candidate should have served on the post of jailor for a continuous period of five years, including period of officiating service preceded by continuous service on the equivalent or lower post in the Jail Department of Government for continuous period of five years excluding period spent in class four service. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner did not fulfil the aforesaid eligibility qualification in view of the fact that if the period of five years is reckoned w.e.f. 18.7.68 i.e. the date when he joined the Jail Department on the post of substantive jailor, he would have completed the period of five years as on 18th July, 1973 and, not from an earlier date preceding 1973. As already stated above, the candidature of the petitioner was again examined by the D.P.C. including the review D.P.C. against the vacancies for the years 1972, 1974, 1976 and consequently he was found suitable against the vacancy of the year 1978 and was given promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent, Jail w.e.f. 19th July, 1979 with all notional pay for the purpose of pension since the petitioner had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.79. 11. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed for the reason that the learned tribunal had grossly over-looked the basic requirements of the rules that when the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion against the vacancies falling period to the year 1973 as referred to above and had rightly been given promotion on the said post w.e.f. 19.7.79, the question of his candidature having not been considered from any earlier date prior to 19.7.79 would not arise since the petitioner was not eligible to be considered retrospectively for promotion prior to the aforesaid date as he did not fulfil the requisite experience of five years including the period of officiating service proceeded by the continuous service on the same, equivalent or lower post in the Jail Department of the Government as required by Column 5 of Schedule A of the Rules, 1959 as referred to above. 12. I am further of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim to have a vested right for promotion and he has only a right to be considered for promotion and it was not open for the tribunal or this Court to substitute it's own judgment over the well-reasoned findings, recorded by the D.P.C. In this case even the review D.P.C., which was specially convened to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Dy. Superintendent Jail, itself after having perused the entire record of service, did not recommend the petitioner for promotion on the said post, hence petitioner cannot raise any grievance before this Court at this stage. 13. Since the petitioner has already retired from services of respondents on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.79, the entire exercise has become academic in this regard. 13. Since the petitioner has already retired from services of respondents on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.79, the entire exercise has become academic in this regard. I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikant Chaphekar, reported in 1993 S.C.C. (L & S) page 48(4) SCC page 689 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal fell into patent error in substituting itself for the D.P.C. The remarks in the annual confidential report are based on the assessment of the work and conduct of the official/officer concerned for a period of one year. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in reaching the conclusion that the remarks were vague and of general nature. In any case, the Tribunal out stepped its jurisdiction in reaching the conclusion that the adverse remarks were not sufficient to deny the respondent his promotion to the post of Deputy Director. It is not the function of the Tribunal to assess the service record of a Government servant and order his promotion on that basis. It is for the D.P.C. to evaluate the same and make recommendations based on such evaluation. In a case where the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that if a person was not considered for promotion or the consideration was illegal then the only direction which can be given is to reconsider his case for promotion in accordance with law. It was not within the competence of the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, to have ordered deemed promotion of the petitioner. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are fully attracted to the facts of the instant case. 14. Incidently before parting with this case, I would like to mention the conduct of the petitioner for having procured and then re-produced the minutes of the review D.P.C. alongwith this writ petition deserves to be deprecated. The minutes of the D.P.C./review D.P.C. is a previleged communication to the departmental authorities concerned and it is surprising to note as to how the petitioner has procured the said minutes dated 25.4.92, which apparently appears to be a collusive ness between the petitioner and some erring officials of the Jail Department of the Central Jail, Jaipur. The minutes of the D.P.C./review D.P.C. is a previleged communication to the departmental authorities concerned and it is surprising to note as to how the petitioner has procured the said minutes dated 25.4.92, which apparently appears to be a collusive ness between the petitioner and some erring officials of the Jail Department of the Central Jail, Jaipur. It is only for the Court to examine and call for the minutes of the D.P.C./review D.P.C. on suitable directions being given in this regard and since otherwise the very purpose of confidentiality for recording "the minutes by the D.P.C. in respect of the candidates whose very case is under consideration would stand lost and-defeated if minutes are to be procured and are supplied to the parties at their sweet will. It was for the tribunal or for this Court to have called for the minutes if further examination of the said minutes was deemed necessary but it is surprising to note that before the tribunal or this Court could call for the minutes, how the petitioner has managed to get the aforesaid minutes reproduced on. the file alongwith his rejoinder, which speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner and of the erring jail officials, who were posted at the relevant time in the Central Jail, Jaipur and which is deprecated in strongest terms. I deem it appropriate to direct that a through enquiry should be conducted in the matter by the Secretary, Jail Department of the State of Rajasthan after appointing enquiry officer within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. The Enquiry Officer should also so appointed, shall complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of three months thereafter and on the basis of report submitted by him to the appropriate authority, the responsibility should be suitably fixed against the 'defaulting officials of the jail department keeping in view the principle of accountability. Dy. Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Home Secretary (Jail Department) of the State as well as to the I.G. prisons for immediate compliance. A copy of the enquiry report should also he communicated to this Court as well as to the learned panel Lawyer of the State for information. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******