Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 557 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Roop Rai

2000-05-02

MOHD.YAMIN, RAJESH BALIA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as caveator. 2. The facts as revealed on the record of this case goes to show that the respondent Mahesh Roop Ral was appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer on 30.9.1963 and approved by R.P.S.C. on 28.4.1964 and thereafter, he was confirmed w.e.f 30.10.1971. The said incumbent finding that another person Shri Rajendra Singh who was appointed and approved by R.P.S.C. later than him and was confirmed on the post of Farm Manager on 30.11.1971, at the relevant time the incumbent respondent was assigned seniority at Serial No. 386 and Shri Rajendra Singh was assigned at Serial No. 466 as Agricultural Extension Officer, on the next higher post of Assistant Marketing Officer also respondent petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 1.8.1978 whereas the said Rajendra Singh was promoted w.e.f. 22.5.1979 but thereafter, the said Rajendra Singh was promoted as District Agricultural Officer vide order dated 23.2.1980, and that respondent petitioner have been shown junior to said Rajendra Singh. Then Shri Mahesh Roop Rai filed an allpeal No. 184/80 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner's claim was that a person junior to him has been promoted on the next higher cadre without considering his case and therefore, he is entitled to be considered and promoted to the next higher cadre with effect from the date any person junior to him has been so considered and appointed. The State has taken the plea that Rajendra Singh has challenged the seniority list by which he has been assigned seniority on the basis of date of confirmation. That suit was decreed on 19.11.1975 and the said Rajendra Singh was deemed to be confirmed as Farm Manager w.e.f. 16.8.1966. That decree was modified on appeal and the date of confirmation was shifted from 16.8.1966 to 16.2.1968. Accordingly, said Rajendra Singh was confirmed on the Subordinate Agricultural post w.e.f. 16.2.1968 and he was assigned seniority at No. 194A in the Subordinate Agricultural Service and because of that he has been considered for promotion before the petitioner-respondent. 3. The appeal of Mahesh Roop Rai respondent-petitioner came to be allowed on 15.3.1982 by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to which State Government as well as said Rajendra Singh were parties. 3. The appeal of Mahesh Roop Rai respondent-petitioner came to be allowed on 15.3.1982 by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to which State Government as well as said Rajendra Singh were parties. The Tribunal ordered that the incumbent be treated as confirmed w.e.f. the date on which respondent No. 3 Rajendra Singh was confirmed, to remove anomaly of the junior person being treated senior by applying the same yardstick as has been applied by the Civil Court in the case of Rajendra Singh. The tribunal was of the view that merely because the suit has been decreed in favour of Rajendra Singh altering the date of confirmation, the State Government could not have given effect to the principle only in the case of the petitioner but ought to have treated all the persons alike in the matter of modifying the date of confirmation by applying the same principle. Said order dated 15.3.1982 was not challenged by the State Government but was challenged by said Rajendra Singh by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 507/83. The order dated 15.3.1982 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur was stayed during the pendency of the said writ petition. The said writ petition has been dismissed only on 13.8.1998. By that time the respondent petitioner as well as said Rajendra Singh had retired from service. 4. The petitioner has filed present petition in the year 1996 some time before his superannuation asking for the mandamus to implement the order of the Tribunal so that he can get the consequential benefits. The only reply of the State was that there is an interim order passed by the High Court at Jaipur on 6.4.1983 which is operating against the implementation of the order dated 15.3.1982. Therefore, State Government is not in the position to implement the order. When matter came up for hearing on 6.1.2000 the learned Single Judge of this Court was informed that writ petition by Rajendra Singh had been dismissed and interim order has come to an end. In these circumstances, the court ordered that the since petition against the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has been dismissed there is no impediment in implementing the order of the Tribunal for which a direction is sought by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the court ordered that the since petition against the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has been dismissed there is no impediment in implementing the order of the Tribunal for which a direction is sought by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with the direction to implement the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur as expeditiously as possible. 5. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the petitioner respondent filed this appeal grossly belated and therefore, it ought not to have been entertained by the court and that ought we know that he may have been considered by the Department Promotion Committee which has not been challenged in the petition. 6. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the contention deserves to be rejected. Admittedly when the order of the Tribunal made on 15.3.1982 was stayed by the Court on 6.4.1983 in the writ petition No. 507/83, It may be a case that the State Government was handicapped in giving effect to that order of the Tribunal during the operation of that interim order and the petitioner may not be able to secure any relief against that order during that period. Any direction could be issued only after the said impediment in complying with the directions of the Tribunal is removed. The objections on the ground of latches and delay, therefore, is overruled. In the circumstances far from being belated, the petition can only be termed premature when filed. The right to secure implementation of order, was under suspended animus during continuance of stay order. There is no dispute about the fact that the said petition has been dismissed by the court only on 13.8.1998. The question of seeking any relief for the implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal could arise only thereafter. 7. In our opinion it would not effect the reliefs which emanates from the order of the Tribunal dated 15.3.1982 because the petitioner has retired since filing of writ petition or on the imaginary plea that he might hav been considered for promotion on his turn. 7. In our opinion it would not effect the reliefs which emanates from the order of the Tribunal dated 15.3.1982 because the petitioner has retired since filing of writ petition or on the imaginary plea that he might hav been considered for promotion on his turn. There is no dispute now since the litigation about the seniority between Mahesh Roop Rai and Rajendra Singh has come to an end and the fact that the respondent petitioner was appointed earlier than the said Rajendra Singh was confirmed. To make it clear, the respondent petitioner is to be treated senior to said Rajendra Singh throughout. Since according to the existing standing of seniority and because of the operation of the interim order throughout this period the Department Promotion Committee, which was to undertake promotional exercise, said Rajendra Singh could only be considered as senior to the respondent petitioner. Therefore, it can be said without hesitation that the petitioner has not been and could not have been considered for promotion in accordance with the seniority as per the directions of the Tribunal. 8. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law to every citizens of this country and Article 16 of the Constitution of India further guarantees equal opportunities in the matter of employment. The equal opportunities does include a fair consideration as and when turn is due for promotion. One of the principles of such consideration is that a person who is junior cannot be considered before a person senior in the same cadre. Question of suitability is to be determined at the time when the turn for consideration arises. In the existing circumstances obviously said Mahesh Roop Ral could not have been so considered for promotion on his turn prior to his junior because he has been considered as a person junior to said Rajendra Singh and such consideration cannot be considered as just and fair fulfilling the test of reasonableness. The petitioner respondent has the constitutional remedy and right to enforce his fundamental rights and seek remedies against the infringement of such rights. Such remedies cannot be denied merely on the ground that during this period the State Government was handicapped by the interim order or some other reasons to protect such fundamental rights of the respondent petitioner. The petitioner respondent has the constitutional remedy and right to enforce his fundamental rights and seek remedies against the infringement of such rights. Such remedies cannot be denied merely on the ground that during this period the State Government was handicapped by the interim order or some other reasons to protect such fundamental rights of the respondent petitioner. May be that the petitioner would not be able to serve in the position in which he otherwise would have served and retired, had he been so considered, if not before but at least at the time when persons junior to him were considered for promotion of the next higher post but he certainly can get benefit of notionally fixed in his right status and pay scale to affect him retiral benefits, to which the petitioner is still entitled to. The learned Single Judge has merely directed to implement the order of the Tribunal and now after the writ petition of Rajendra Singh has been dismissed by this Court there is no impediment in implementing the order of the Tribunal. 9. We therefore, find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******