Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1710 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal Sonal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-05

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Vice Principal alongwith the candidates who were junior to the petitioner, but were promoted vide order dtd.01.07.2000 (Annex.3). It was further prayed that the respondents may be directed to give the senior pay scale to the petitioner from the date he completed eight years of his service. 3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III vide order dtd.210.1974. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II vide order dtd.08.04.1985. 4. It is also alleged by the petitioner that as he possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Head-Master of Secondary School, therefore, he appeared in the examination for appointment on the post of Head-Master. The petitioner passed the said examination and was appointed on the post of Head-Master vide order dtd.08.07.1993 (Annex.1) in the pay scale of Rs.2,000-3,500. Thereafter, on the recommendation of Vth Pay Commission, the pay of the petitioner was revised to Rs.7,500-12,000. The petitioner was thereafter confirmed on the post of Head-Master vide order dtd.07.06.1996. 5. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the DPC was held for promotion on the post of Vice Principal for the year 1999-2000 on the basis of seniority cum merit and vide order dtd.01.07.2000 the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner was shocked to see that his name was not considered by the DPC inspite of the fact that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Vice Principal 6. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dtd.01.07.2000, he submitted a representation on 211.2001, but to no avail. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd.30.08.2002 (Annex.6), he was promoted on the post of Vice Principal in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 against the vacancies in the year 1999-2000. Vide order dtd.01.09.2003 (Annex.7), the petitioner was posted on the post of Principal at Govt. Sr. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd.30.08.2002 (Annex.6), he was promoted on the post of Vice Principal in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 against the vacancies in the year 1999-2000. Vide order dtd.01.09.2003 (Annex.7), the petitioner was posted on the post of Principal at Govt. Sr. Secondary School Kantaliya and it was stated in the order that the petitioner would be getting the same pay scale which was drawn by him in the previous post. 8. It has been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that vide order dtd.310.2001 (Annex.8), the respondents have increased the pay scale of Principal to Rs.9,000-14,400/-, whereas the petitioner though has completed eight years of services on the post of Head-Master and after completion of the same, he was entitled to get the senior pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/-, but despite this, the respondents are giving the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000/-to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a number of representations regarding his grievance for not considering him in the DPC held in 1999-2000 and regarding the senior pay scale which was not granted to him. 9. Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd.010.2004 (Annex.10), number of persons junior to the petitioner have been granted the senior pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/-, whereas the petitioner has been deprived of the same without any rhyme or reason. 10. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has written a letter dtd.09.02.2005 (Annex.11) to the respondent No.2 asking him to give appropriate direction regarding non-sanctioning of senior pay scale to the petitioner even after completion of 8 years of services. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has submitted a number of representations, but the same have not been decided. 12. In the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, at this stage, by giving a direction to the concerned authority to consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law only. 13. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today and the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within a period of two months. 13. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today and the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within a period of two months. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed.