Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 115 (RAJ)

Mahesh Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-10

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2006
Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-Since, on similar set of facts same reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners, the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. While challenging about 29 orders of promotion issued in October, 1991, giving promotion to various persons on different posts on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioners have also made following prayers which are reproduced hereasunder:- “B) By an appropriate writ order or direction the quota and cyclic order as prescribed in Schedule for promotion to the post of Executive Officer II, Executive Officer III, and Revenue Officer I, may be set aside and quashed and it may be directed that the quota for promotion to the post of Executive Officer III should only be made from Executive Officer IV and promotion to the post of Revenue Officer I, should be made from Revenue Officer II, only or in the alternative promotions from the post of Executive Officer IV and Revenue Officer II should be made in equal proportion. C) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Respondents No.1 & 2 be directed to re-convene the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the posts of Executive Officer II, Executive Officer III, and Revenue Officer I, for various years after the publication of the final seniority list of the Executive Officer IV, and Revenue Officer II. D) By an appropriate writ order or direction, 2nd Proviso to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Municipal Services Rules, may be declared to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and consequently the order issued in pursuance of the aforesaid rules be also quashed and set aside. E) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Proviso to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules, 1963, may be declared ultra vires to the Act, and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and all consequential orders issued may be quashed and set aside. (F) Byan appropriate writ order or direction the Respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to re-convene the meeting of DPC for the post of Commissioner, Executive Officer II, Revenue Officer I, Executive Officer III, and Revenue Officer II and Executive Officer IV in accordance with the Rules. (F) Byan appropriate writ order or direction the Respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to re-convene the meeting of DPC for the post of Commissioner, Executive Officer II, Revenue Officer I, Executive Officer III, and Revenue Officer II and Executive Officer IV in accordance with the Rules. (G) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to promote the petitioners to the post of Revenue Officer I, in the year 1976, and thereafter to the post of Executive Officer II, in the year 1981, or in such other year in which the posts are found vacant, and the petitioners are entitled to get promotion thereon.” 3. There in no dispute that the petitioners had initially been appointed on temporary basis on different posts, however, were given substantive appointment on recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on respective posts much earlier. 4. It appears that with the reclassification of various Municipalities necessary amendments were made in the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules as also Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules to give necessary benefits to the employees of the Municipalities abolished or reclassified, as the case may be. A cyclic order in regard to promotion to technical persons on the administrative posts have been provided in Schedule to the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules. Some of the posts in the subordinate Services have also been clubbed for further promotion to the cadre in Rajasthan Municipal Services Rules so as to give opportunity of promotion to such members of Subordinate Service for promotion to the higher services. After amendment in the relevant rules regular promotions had been stalled for some reason or the other which could only be finalised in the year 1991 after all cases of different posts been considered by the DPC. There is no dispute that the petitioners have also been recommended and promoted to the respective posts as per recommendations of the DPC alongwith other employees. In given circumstances, when necessary amendments are made in the rules to give benefit to a certain class of persons there may always be some grievance for other employees, however, it is the discretion of the State Government to consider all the facts, circumstances, nature of work, cadre strength and provide necessary promotion avenues accordingly uniformally to all its employees. In given circumstances, when necessary amendments are made in the rules to give benefit to a certain class of persons there may always be some grievance for other employees, however, it is the discretion of the State Government to consider all the facts, circumstances, nature of work, cadre strength and provide necessary promotion avenues accordingly uniformally to all its employees. The amendments made cannot be held ultra vires to the Constitution merely on the ground of same affecting rights of few persons. That apart, promotions have been made way back in the year 1991. All the persons so promoted in view of the amendments made have not been implemented as party to the present litigation so far. 5. It is well settled that this Court will not disturb the seniority and promotions made long back more so when further promotions might have also taken place and some of the persons been given such promotion also stood retired. This will only to unsettling the whole position after a lapse of more than 14 years. 6. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, since the petitioners have also been given benefits strictly as per the provisions of the relevant rules existed at the relevant time, no interference is called for by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as having no merits.