Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2645 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chandra Bajaj

2006-09-05

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. 1. An order was passed in this matter to hear it at the admission stage for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for both the parties as a short controversy is involved in this matter. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the learned Single Judge as also the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by which the promotion granting to the respondent No. 1 Shri Jagdish Chandra Bajaj taking his date of promotion as 1978 had been upheld. 3. The appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 Shri Jagdish Chandra Bajaj thus was allowed by the Tribunal which was upheld by the learned Single Judge also as the writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan had been dismissed. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid orders of the learned Single Judge as also the Tribunal and to highlight the controversy it may be relevant to state that the respondent No. 1 Shri Jagdish Chandra Bajaj had been promoted as Assistant Engineer by order dated 9.1.1990 and the year of his promotion was assigned as 1978. After nine years of this order, another order was passed by the State of Rajasthan on 12.3.1999 laying down therein that the appellant's year of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer would be treated as 1979 in place of 1978 and the justification offered-by the State was that this was done in pursuance of an order passed by a Court due to which the inter se seniority of the Junior Engineers had to be determined by the appellant-State. As a result of this exercise, the year of promotion of the respondent No. 1 was changed from 1978 to 1979. 5. As a result of this exercise, the year of promotion of the respondent No. 1 was changed from 1978 to 1979. 5. The respondent feeling aggrieved with the order dated 12.3.1999 by which the date of promotion of respondent No. 1 was changed from 1978 to 1979 was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellant Tribunal wherein the respondent-State submitted that the date of promotion had to be changed while determining the inter se seniority and further submitted that respondent No. 1 had wrongly been granted promotion in the year 1978 as according to his seniority he should have been granted promotion in the year 1979 as he had not acquired the essential qualification of All India Member of the Engineering Institute (for short 'AIME') in February 1978 before the order of promotion was issued. This contention was adequately met with by the respondents who had submitted that as per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 which has laid down procedure for recruitment by promotion, envisages Rule 23 which lays down criteria for selection by promotion and in this Rule it has been categorically laid down that the persons enumerated in Column 4 of Schedule 1 subject to their possessing minimum qualifications and experience on the first day of the month of April of the year of Selection specified in column 5, would be eligible for promotion. 6. It was therefore contended on his behalf before the Tribunal that the particular month of April of the year of selection was relevant for considering the persons' essential qualification for the purpose of promotion and the respondent No. 1 Shri Jagdish Chandra Bajaj having acquired AIME qualification in the month of February 1978, he was duly qualified to be promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer as he had already acquired this qualification prior to April 1978 and therefore his year of promotion could not have been subsequently changed in the year 1979 by changing his date of promotion from the year 1978 to 1979. 7. Confronting this part of the argument, the learned Government Advocate Mr. Sharma submitted that if the exercise was undertaken to determine inter-se seniority of all similarly situated persons including respondent No. 1, then the respondent's date of promotion had to be scrutinised by the authorities while determining the inter-se seniority. 8. 7. Confronting this part of the argument, the learned Government Advocate Mr. Sharma submitted that if the exercise was undertaken to determine inter-se seniority of all similarly situated persons including respondent No. 1, then the respondent's date of promotion had to be scrutinised by the authorities while determining the inter-se seniority. 8. We have found absolutely no substance in this part of the argument advanced by the Government Advocate for even as per the Court order, if the inter-se seniority was ordered to be determined, it was nowhere directed that the authorities would be at liberty to enter into the correctness of the order of promotion granted to a person long ago as in the instance case where the respondent No. 1 had been granted promotion from the year 1978 by order dated 9.1.1990. The entire exercise which had to be done by the State was merely to determine the inter-se seniority of the persons by taking their date of promotion or appointment and it had nowhere directed to enter into the scrutiny of the promotion order and therefore the argument advanced by the Government Advocate that the change in the date of promotion was justified while determining the inter-se seniority is not sustainable. 9. It hardly needs to be explained that while determining the inter-se seniority, if a particular exercise of promotion or appointment has already been undertaken by the authorities after which the officer has benefited by securing an appointment or promotion then while determining the seniority, the correctness of the order of the promotion cannot be gone into by the authorities and for this reason we outright rejected the contention of the Government Advocate. This was the only point which has been urged by the Advocate in this appeal. This was the only point which has been urged by the Advocate in this appeal. In so far as the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge is concerned, in fact the only question that had been raised by the respondent was that the respondent No. 1 had wrongly been promoted from the year 1978 as he acquired the qualification of AMIE in February 1978 whereas he should have acquired this qualification in January 1978, we have already dealt with this part of the argument hereinabove and we reiterate that this controversy does not find support from Rule 23 of the Rules of 1967 as this Rule clearly states that the date of acquisition of the particular qualification for the purpose of promotion would be first April of that year and therefore if the respondent had acquired the qualification in February 1978, he was duly eligible to be granted promotion from January 1978 as the Rule states that the qualification would be determined from the First April of that year. Besides all this, the order of promotion had been granted in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1990 granting him promotion from Januay 1978 and after 9 years another order in the year 1999 could not have been passed without even granting opportunity to the respondent to change his date of promotion. We have thus found no substance in the appeal directed against the judgment and order passed by the Court below. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.Appeal Dismissed. *******