Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-13

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By the instant writ petition the petitioner is assailing validity and propriety of the order dated 23.06.1995 passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Education (Group III) whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Principal, Degree College from the post of Principal, Post Graduate Degree College. The petitioner while assailing the validity of the order dated 23.06.1995 also sought a direction for respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal, Post Graduate Degree College/Joint Director, Directorate of College Education against the vacancies which are not pertaining to reserve categories for the year 1995-96. The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Educational Service Collegiate Branch created under Rajasthan Educational Service Collegiate Branch Rules, 1986. The petitioner was promoted as Vice Principal, Post Graduate Degree College against the vacancies of the year 1993-94 under the order dated 011.1994 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Education Group III, Jaipur. The respondent State published a seniority list pertaining to the members of Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch ) under a memorandum dated 25.01.1995. In the seniority list dated 25.01.1995 name of the petitioner appears at S.No. 47 in the category of Vice Principal, Degree College. In the said list name of Smt. Asha Mishra and Sh. Lok Nath Shaily appears at S. No. 48 and 49 respectively. The respondent-State under an order dated 15.02.1995 made promotions of 31 persons holding the post of Vice Principal, Degree College as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College/Joint Director. These promotions were made against the vacancies of the year 1994-95. By another order dated 15.02.1995 nine Vice Principals, Post Graduate Degree College, including the petitioner were promoted as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College/Joint Director against the vacancies of 1994-95. These promotions were made under the criteria of seniority cum merit and were subject to review and revision. Name of the petitioner in the order dated 15.02.1995 appears at S. No. 3 and all other persons below the name of the petitioner in the order dated 15.02.1995 are said to be junior than the petitioner in the cadre Vice Principal under the Rules of 1986. The petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 15.02.1995 availed promotion to the post of Principal, Post Graduate Degree College and was posted as Principal, Government Degree College, Deedwana. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 15.02.1995 availed promotion to the post of Principal, Post Graduate Degree College and was posted as Principal, Government Degree College, Deedwana. 2. The respondent-State on 23.06.1995 passed another order whereby 13 persons were promoted as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College against the vacancies of the year 1995-96. These promotions were made under the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee and were on regular basis. The order dated 23.06.1995 contains the name of Smt. Asha Mishra and Sh. Lok Nath Shaily at S. No. 2 and 3 among the regularly promoted incumbents. It is pertinent to note here that by order dated 15.02.1995 Smt. Asha Mishra and Lok Nath Shaily were promoted as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College along with the petitioner subject to review and revision and their names were shown below to the petitioner. They were also shown junior to the petitioner in the seniority list dated 211.1995. 3. On 23.06.1995 the respondent-State while making promotions of 13 persons as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College also passed an order bearing No. F1(15) Education-3/93 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be posted as Principal, Government Degree College, Suratgarh on reversion. The petitioner by this petition for writ has given challenge to both the orders dated 23.06.1995 whereby promotions were given to 13 persons as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College ignoring his claim and also the order whereby he was reverted as Principal, Degree College. 4. The sole contention of the petitioner is that there was no occasion to revert him as the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion and then for regular promotion as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College against the vacancies of the year 1995-96. According to the petitioner there was no just and valid reason to deny promotion to him as Principal, Post Graduate Degree College against the vacancies of the year 1995-96 specially in the circumstances that at least 13 persons junior to him were promoted as Principal under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner contended that he is a member of Scheduled Caste but irrespective of this fact he is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the general seniority in the cadre of Vice Principal. 5. The petitioner contended that he is a member of Scheduled Caste but irrespective of this fact he is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the general seniority in the cadre of Vice Principal. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on the behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste was required to be considered for promotion against the vacancies in the applicable roster for Scheduled Castes. This was necessary for the reason that in no case reservation quota and the percentage of reservation be allowed to exceed as per the directions given by Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in Judgment s Today 1995 (Vol. II) SC 351. The stand taken by the respondents to this effect in their reply is worth to be noticed as under: "10. . . . . . This was necessary for the reasons that in no case reservation quota and the percentageof reservation was not to exceed as per the intention and object and observation made by HonbleSupreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab, reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 351, decided on 10.02.1995. It was observed that the prescribed quota and prescribed percentage should not be allowed to exceed in any case. 15. That in reply to para No. 15 of the amended writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to get promotion for want of quota in reserve . For the Year 1995- 6 his claim was premature and was not capable for any consideration as far as the candidate 4 to mentioned in Annex.4 dated 15.02.1995, they are all from general and not from SC/ST category. Therefore, petitioners contention is without any force." 6. The Counsel for the respondent also pointed out a circular issued by the Government of Rajasthan dated 26.05.1995 whereby necessary instructions were given to all the authorities concerned with regard to implementation of reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes while making promotions in accordance with the applicable roster. It is contented that the Circular dated 26.05.1995 is in true spirit of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (Supra), which prohibits excessive reservation than the prescribed limits. 8. It is contented that the Circular dated 26.05.1995 is in true spirit of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (Supra), which prohibits excessive reservation than the prescribed limits. 8. heard the Counsel for the parties. the posts earmarked in perused and examined the circular dated 26.05.1995. The Circular dated 26.05.1995 iscertainly in consonance with the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) but the stand taken by the respondents in their reply is neither in consonance with the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court nor in consonance with the Circular dated 26.05.1995.justificationHonbl Supreme Cou t in the case of R.K. Sabharwal emphasized that there is no Castes/Scheduleop rate the roste Tribes and the Backward Classes are filed to thth xtent perc ntage of reservation provided for the reserve categ ies. This clearly relates to filling in the vacanci s by way of reservation.to It nowhere restricts the right of consideration of members of Scheduled Castes, Tribes or the OBCs as the case may be f when recruitment/ promotion against the vacancies which arenot related to reserve categories. Honble Supreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal (Supra) inspecific terms held that candidates and belonging to rosterof for Scheduled non-reserve post and in the event of their appointment treserve category can compete for the treated and taken into consideration for working out the percentage f reservation. The relevant portion of the Judgment referred above is worth to be quoted below:said p st their number cannot be "When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to general are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other ha d reserve candidates can compete for the non-reserve and in the event of their appointment of the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for worki g out the percentage of 9. The petitioner is c aiming his right to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, Postgraduate Degree Co lege on basis of his seniority with ut claiming any reservation. The petitioner is c aiming his right to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, Postgraduate Degree Co lege on basis of his seniority with ut claiming any reservation. The respondents have admitted the f ct that promotion was denied t the petitioner solely for the reason tha numbe of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes has reac d to the maximum reservation reservation."lso apparent from the perusal of t documents annex d with hew i p tition that th persons junior tha the petitioner in the cadre of Vice Principal weis claimingagainst he vacanci s which are not related to any reserve category. When the petitione belongs to his righ o be considered for promotio against the vacanci s which are not related to any reserve category hen t ere is no reason to deny the same on th count that the petitionesocially andSche uled Caste. If the stand taken by respondents is accepted then it will mean as if the statutep ovid d fo the category. It isappointment in a specific cadre from amongst members of belonging to Sc eduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or OBCs as the case may be. This view shall benothing but against the spirit of the cand datur oproviding reservation for promo ed educationally backward categories. 10. In view of whatever state above I am of the considered opinion hat is was obligatory for denial of Rajasthan t the State the year 1995-96 against the vacancies whic are not rela ed o reserve categories. Theprovi es maximum limit ofconsi erthe intent on the s niori y of the petitioner is unjust, vacancies consideration f r promotion in accordancfor wit the petitioner for promotion against the arbitrary as well as discriminatory and the same, therefore, is h ld in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The reversion of the petitioner was also absolutely unwarranted as respondents reverted the petitioner without considering his candidature for promotion to the post of Principal, Postgraduate Degree College in accordance with law against the vacancies of the year1995-96. 11.12 No other ground was urged for consideration by the partiesThe writ petiti n for the reasons mentioned above succeeds and, therefore, is allowed. 11.12 No other ground was urged for consideration by the partiesThe writ petiti n for the reasons mentioned above succeeds and, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.06 1995 whereby the petitioner was revert d (Annexure-5) is quashed to the extent it relates to petitioner The respondents are directed to consid r the candidature of the petitioner against the vacancies f the year 1995-96 for the purpose of otion to the post of Principal, Postgraduate College. In the event the petitioner is found suitable, otion be accorded to him. 13. No order as to costs.