Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 900 (RAJ)

Nand Kishore v. R. S. E. B.

1998-08-20

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1998
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. (2). By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the non-petitioners be directed to correct and revise the final seniority list circulated vide letter dated 7.1.1987 and to show the petition at serial No. 462 just below the name of Shri N.P.Chouhan and may be given consequential benefits and the impugned letter dated 1.8.1988 be quashed to the extent it refused to correct and revise the final seniority list and any other appropriate relief which the Court deems fit be passed in favour of the petitioner. (3). It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as J.En. sometime in the year 1965. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was promoted as A.En. vide Annex.3 dated 12.8.76. In the seniority list of Junior Engineers, issued on 8.3.1971, the petitioners name was shown on serial No.239. Later on another seniority list of Junior Engineers issued on 6.6.1984. In this list, the name of petitioner was shown at serial No.230. The second list indicated the seniority as on 1.8.1980. The final se- niority list of Assistant Engineers was published on 7.11.1987 showing the position on 31.12.1980. In this seniority list, the petitioners name was shown at No.492. (4). The petititoner submitted a representation (Annexure 5) against the final seniority list published on 7.11.1987. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 1.8.1988 (Annexure6) on the ground that after the publication of the final seniority list, no fresh representation could be entertained. It is also mentioned in this letter dated 1.8.1988 that petitioners earlier representation dated 17.6.1988 was allowed to the extent of making the corrections indicated in the letter. (5). In reply, the non-petitioners have pleaded that the petitioner had not been superceded at the time of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. He omitted to file the certificate showing that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, his promotion was delayed and for this delay, the non- petitioners were not responsible and the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers had been publi- shed by the non-petitioners in accordance with the recommendation of the D.B.C. (6). He omitted to file the certificate showing that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, his promotion was delayed and for this delay, the non- petitioners were not responsible and the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers had been publi- shed by the non-petitioners in accordance with the recommendation of the D.B.C. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that if the petitioner had submitted the certificate of belonging to Scheduled Caste in time, he would have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 4.6.1976 along with other candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, but, since the petitioner had not sub- mitted the certificate of belonging to the Scheduled Caste in time, he could not be promoted on 4.6.1976 and after the submission of the certificate, he was promoted on 12.8.1976 vide order Annex.3. It appears that the petitioner has been denied seniority on account of the fact that the order promoting him to the post of Assistant Engineer could not be issued on 4.6.1976 as a certificate of his belonging to the Sch- eduled Caste was not available on that day. The petitioner, in the absence of any sufficient reason for denying promotion on 4.6.1976, was entitled to the promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer on 4.6.1976 when other persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste had been promoted. The only reason assigned for not passing the order of promotion of the petitioner on 4.6.1976 is that the certificate showing that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste had not been submitted on that day was submitted by the petitioner subsequently. My attention has not been drawn to any Rule which may be said to be impose an obligation on a candidate who has been duly selected on the ground that he was a member of Scheduled Caste, to submit another certificate showing that he is a member of Scheduled Caste, at the time of promotion, to the post of Assistant Engineer nor my attention has been drawn to any Rule which may be said to empower the non-petitioners to deprive the petitioner of his seniority on the ground that he was required to submit a certificate of being a member of Scheduled Caste and that he committed a delay in submission of certificate. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted w.e.f.4.6.1976, when other Junior Engineers belonging to the Scheduled Caste had been promoted and the unfortunate delay in issuing the promotion order Annex.3 cannot justify the non-petitioners to discriminate the petitioner vis-a-vis other Junior Engineers who have been appointed on 4.6.1976, by depriving the petitioner of the seniority to which he was entitled in accordance with the Rules and the final seniority of Junior engineers in which his name was shown at serial No. 230. (8). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that it will proper that the respondents be directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner against the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers published by the non-petitioners, so that, after hearing such objections as may be submitted by the concerned Officers, who are likely to be affected by representation, necessary orders may be passed. (9). In view of the above submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 1.8.1988 whereby the non-pe- titioners held that the representation made by the petitioner could not be considered after the publication of the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers, is hereby quashed and set aside. The non-petitioners are hereby directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner, in light of the aforesaid observations, and if necessary, after giving the opportunity of being heard to those officers who are likely to be affected, in case the representation is allowed. The non-petitioners are expected to comply with this order within a period of six months from the date of passing of this Order.