Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1449 (RAJ)

K. S. Maithreya v. State

2000-12-07

ARUN MADAN, K.S.RATHORE

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. 1. The matter has been taken up and finally heard at the request of the learned counsel at the admission stage itself. 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant, in short, is that she was initially appointed on the post of Clinical Psychologist on 15.6.1967 on purely ad hoc basis in the Medical & Health Department pursuant to the order of the Director of Medical and Health Services, Jaipur (respondent No. 3). Subsequently, she was regularly selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and thereafter her services were regularised but no further promotional benefit was extended to him. His further contention is that though the appellant has been serving in the department with effect from the aforesaid date of appointment under the Rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to canvass the case of the appellant by showing any relevant rule in pursuance of which the appellant was deprived of the promotional benefits in the cadre of Clinical Psychologist and as per the version of appellant himself in para-2 of the appeal. `There are no promotional avenues in the cadre under the rules', yet she is entitled to be considered for promotion on the principle that `promotion is a formal incidence in service'. 4. He has further contended that there is no justifiable reason as to why similarly placed officers in other ministries should have the benefit of promotion, while the non-medical Group `A' Scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services have been deprived of such advantage. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has sought direction from this Court that as per the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology, appropriate amendment should be made to extend the benefit of promotion to the appellant on parity with other similarly placed officers in the Ministry of Health. The law is well settled that it is not for the court to supplement or supplant the rules framed by the Legislature and in the instant case when the Rules are silent on the issues, it is not for this Court to give any such directions. 6. The law is well settled that it is not for the court to supplement or supplant the rules framed by the Legislature and in the instant case when the Rules are silent on the issues, it is not for this Court to give any such directions. 6. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Ms.O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, 1990 Supp. SC 688 , wherein the Apex Court while dealing with a writ petition pertaining to scientists belonging to non-medical Group `A' in the establishment of Director General of Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has observed that in absence of provision for promotional channel, making of similar provision with necessary modifications was directed to be made. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, yet we are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not attracted to the instant case since it is not for this Court to direct amendment in the Rules. The appellant has not even challenged the vires of the rules framed by the respondents. We are consequently of the view that no such directions can be issued to the respondents to frame or suitably amend the rules granting selection-scale to the petitioner in the cadre of Clinical Psychologist by providing further promotional avenue in the cadre of Clinical psychologist. 7. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage itself vide order dated 8.3.2000 has observed that since the appellant while joining on the post of Clinical psychologist was well aware of the provisions of the above rules that no further promotional avenue are available on the post on which he was appointed as per which no obligation is cast upon the department to give promotion to the appellant in absence of the rules, we are of the view that order passed by the learned Single Judge is not open to challenge in this appeal. 8. Be that as it may, even on merits, we find no case worth consideration in this appeal. 8. Be that as it may, even on merits, we find no case worth consideration in this appeal. However, having regard to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the appellant shall be free to make proper representation to the concerned authorities for consideration of making necessary amendment in the rules or even in regard to give her selection scale. if available under any rules. In regard to the representation made by the appellant to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur and to the Medical and Health Secretary, Rajasthan dated 9th July, 1991 (Ann. 7) followed by notice for demand of justice dated 24th July, 1991 (Ann. 9), we have been informed that the same is still pending with the concerned authorities for consideration. The appellant is also free to approach the concerned authorities for early decision on the said representation, in accordance with law, if so advised. We hope and expect that the said representations shall be dealt with expeditiously and a decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, the special appeal stands dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******