Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 472 (RAJ)

Rameshwar Lal Laoti v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-14

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the higher posts which has been denied to the petitioner without any rhyme or reason. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered the services of the Government of Rajasthan being appointed as Teacher Grade III w.e.f. 11.07.1959. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II w.e.f. 15.08.1966. During the course of service, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Lecturer (School Education) w.e.f. 112.1983. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that a false criminal complaint was lodged against him in the year 1989 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC at the Police Station, Kapasan. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and he was arrested by the investigating agency for the purpose of investigation in the case referred above. 4. It has further been alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that since he remained in the police custody for a period of more than 48 hours, therefore, the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner exercising the powers under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958), placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 010.1989 (Annex. 1) w.e.f. 14.09.1989. 5. The petitioner has further averred in the writ petition that he remained under suspension till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.1998 as the criminal case referred to above was pending trial. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner by order dated 212.1990 (Annex. 2) exercising the powers under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970), promoted 25 persons including the petitioner on the post of Head Master. In the said order, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 10. However, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Master vide order dated 212.1990 (Annex. 2) was cancelled by order dated 22.01.1991 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner. 7. In the said order, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 10. However, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Master vide order dated 212.1990 (Annex. 2) was cancelled by order dated 22.01.1991 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner. 7. That the further case of the petitioner is that the order dated 22.01.1991 (Annex. 3) does not bear any reason for cancellation of the order dated 212.1990. However, it appears that the order dated 212.1990 was cancelled on account of suspension of the petitioner and pendency of criminal trial against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. 8. It has further been alleged by the petitioner in the petition that vide order dated 111.1996, the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner promoted 18 Head Masters to the post of Vice Principal under the Rules of 1970 as a consequence of regular selection proceedings conducted under Rule 24(2)(a) of the Rules of 1970. 9. The main grievance raised in this writ petition by the petitioner is that the persons who were junior to him in the cadre of School Lecturer were promoted to the post of Head Master as well as to the post of Vice Principal by orders (Annexs. 2 and 4), but the promotion was not accorded to the petitioner as he was under suspension and was facing criminal trial. 10. Further case of the petitioner is that during the course of service, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.1998 and a notice dated 22.04.1998 (Annex. 5) in this regard was given to the petitioner. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was under suspension. 11. It has further been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that after completion of trial, he was acquitted for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC by Judgment dated 21.02.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh. Against the order of acquittal, the State Government preferred leave to appeal before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 30.05.2002. The further case of the petitioner is that no special leave petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 30.05.2002 whereby the State appeal filed against the order of acquittal of the petitioner was rejected. 12. The further case of the petitioner is that no special leave petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 30.05.2002 whereby the State appeal filed against the order of acquittal of the petitioner was rejected. 12. Further case of the petitioner is that on his acquittal of the criminal charges by the competent criminal Court, the respondent No. 2 while exercising the powers under Rule 54(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951), revoked the suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 28.04.2003 (Annex. 6) by treating the petitioners suspension period commencing from 14.09.1989 to 31.01.1998 as a regular period of service. 13. It has further been averred by the petitioner that the Joint Director (Personnel), Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner was pleased to issue No Objection Certificate and Satisfactory Service Certificate to the petitioner on 05.06.2003. Further contention of the petitioner is that from perusal of the certificate (Annex. 7), it is apparent that no disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the petitioner either under Rule 16 or 17 of the Rules of 1958. 14. The further case of the petitioner is that after his acquittal by the competent criminal Court and after revocation of his suspension vide order dated 28.04.2003, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.05.2003 (Annex. 8) through proper channel to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner for considering his candidature for promotion to the post of Head Master and then to the post of Vice Principal from the date the persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner also claimed the benefit of provisions of Rule 26-A of the Rules of 1951. 15. Further case of the petitioner is that he submitted a reminder to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner through proper channel on 21.07.2003 (Annex. 9). Further reminder was also given to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner by the petitioner on 04.09.2003, but to no avail. 10.16. It has further been averred by the petitioner that when his grievance was not redressed despite submission of a number of representations and reminders, he sent a notice for demand of justice (Annex. 10) to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner and other authorities on 210.2003 through registered post which has been duly served upon the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner and Secretary to the Government, Department of Education. 17. 10) to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner and other authorities on 210.2003 through registered post which has been duly served upon the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner and Secretary to the Government, Department of Education. 17. That the main grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents have not paid any heed to his grievance nor any reply was given by the respondents to the representations submitted by him. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no outstanding liability against the petitioner nor any criminal case or departmental enquiry is pending against him, despite that the petitioners case has not been considered and the matter is still in vein. 18. Be that as it may, during the course of argument, it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as also the notice for demand of justice. Since the request of the petitioner is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage by giving a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Master and thereafter to the post of Vice Principal in accordance with law only. 19. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as also notice for demand of justice in accordance with law and in case the petitioner wants to file fresh representation, he is directed to file the same within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of representation. 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 brief reasoned order may be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.