Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 478 (RAJ)

Jagjiwanchand Bhandari v. Rajasthan High Court

2006-02-13

CHATRA RAM JAT, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition by an ex-employee of the Rajasthan High Court has been filed for quashing of orders of promotion of Respondents No. 3 to 7 on the posts of Senior Bench Reader, Office Superintendent, Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar. In particular, he seeks quashing of the orders dated 210.1989, 210.1989 and 210.1989 promoting the said respondents on the posts of Senior Bench Reader and Office Superintendent. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the orders dated 16.06.1984 and 211.1993. By the former order, the promotion of petitioner on the post of Senior Bench Reader was described as ad hoc and subject to the result of departmental proceeding; by the latter order, his claim of promotion on the posts of Senior Bench Reader, Office Superintendent, Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 13 to 19 by which he was awarded penalties in different departmental proceedings. He also seeks direction to fix his seniority and promote him on the above posts with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated are that on 010.1958 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk and confirmed on 01.04.1960. On 11.08.1967, he was promoted as Upper Divison Clerk and confirmed on that post on 010.1971. A dispute arose as to whether promotion on the post of Stamp Reporter/Bench Reader/Court Fee Examiner, etc., could be made on the basis of selection test or seniority. On judicial side, the Court held in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 281 of 1982, Ghanshyamdas vs. Rajasthan High Court, that the proposed test would be qualifying test and not a competitive test. On 16.06.1984, the petitioner was promoted as Stamp Reporter/Court Fee Examiner with effect from 16.4.1979 and further promoted, by the same order, as Bench Reader with effect from 16.04.1979. By another part of the same order he was also promoted as Senior Bench Reader with effect from 02.01.1984. It was however stated that promotion on the post of Senior Bench Reader was ad hoc and subject to result of departmental proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules”) and the criminal case with respect to disappearance of judicial files. In the departmental proceeding, referred to in the order viz. In the departmental proceeding, referred to in the order viz. D.E. No. 4/78, the petitioner was exonerated and in the criminal case also, the police submitted final report. In the meantime, on 17.02.1987 pursuant to the penalty awarded in another proceeding viz. D.E. No. 11/86, he was reverted to the post of Bench Reader. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Chief Justice on 21.09.1988. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3275 of 1988 against the said orders which was dismissed on 03.05.1989. He then moved the Supreme Court but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 24.07.1995. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired meanwhile on the post of Bench Reader on 30.06.1992. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1515/1986 seeking direction to consider his case pursuant to his exoneration in D.E. No. 4/1978 and the order passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 244/1987 and 421/1987 setting-aside penalties imposed upon him in other enquiries under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and, further, the submission of final report in FIR No. 154/1978 under Section 380, IPC. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.08.1993 with direction to consider the case of the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted, and subject to being found fit for such promotion, to give him all consequential benefits flowing from such promotion. The Court further directed that the petitioner be paid arrears of salary and other allowances in the light of Judgment in some other case. Pursuant to the order/direction, the case of the petitioner was considered but rejected by order dated 211.1993. The learned Chief Justice observed that the petitioner already stood promoted to the post of Senior Bench Reader with effect from 02.01.1984 subject to result of DE No. 4/1978, but as a consequence of the penalty of reduction in rank in DE No. 11/1986, had been reverted to the post of Bench Reader. Thus, by virtue of his exoneration in DE No. 4/1978 and discharge in the criminal case, he would be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Senior Bench Reader on officiating basis with effect from 02.01.1984 till his reversion to the post of Bench Reader with effect from 112.1987. Thus, by virtue of his exoneration in DE No. 4/1978 and discharge in the criminal case, he would be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Senior Bench Reader on officiating basis with effect from 02.01.1984 till his reversion to the post of Bench Reader with effect from 112.1987. As regards promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and further promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar, learned Chief Justice on consideration of the relevant records, work, conduct and overall performance of the petitioner, did not find him fit for such promotion and accordingly rejected his claim. The petitioner, as mentioned above, stood compulsorily retired in the meantime on 30.06.1992. 4. The petitioner had meanwhile also challenged the order of compulsory retirement in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5222/1993 which was allowed on 24.07.1998 and the order of compulsory retirement was set-aside on the ground that the order had been passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Chief Justice and not by the appointing authority. Pursuant to the direction, the case of the petitioner was considered by the appointing authority i.e. Registrar General and by order dated 22.09.1998 the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner as Bench Reader was reiterated. The order was upheld by the Chief Justice on appeal preferred by the petitioner. He then filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3001/1989 which was dismissed on 04.09.2000. 5. In view of subsequent orders referred to above, the petitioner amended his writ petition, which he had filed in 1990, seeking reliefs as mentioned above. 6. It would appear that the petitioner in effect and substance seeks direction for his promotion on the post of Senior Bench Reader and further promotions on the posts of Office Superintendent, Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar, after quashing promotions granted to his juniors who have been impleaded as Respondents Nos. 3 to 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 have since retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation and, therefore, there can be no justification to consider the validity of their promotions at this stage. Indeed, the challenge is not on account of any defect; their promotions are sought to be quashed only but because they were promoted superseding the petitioner. 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 have since retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation and, therefore, there can be no justification to consider the validity of their promotions at this stage. Indeed, the challenge is not on account of any defect; their promotions are sought to be quashed only but because they were promoted superseding the petitioner. 7. Adverting to the petitioners claim for promotion, it is not in dispute that feeder post for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent is Senior Bench Reader and, therefore, unless the person is promoted to the post of Senior Bench Reader, he cannot claim promotion on the post of Office Superintendent or higher posts. As seen above, the petitioner was promoted at one stage on the post of Senior Bench Reader, albeit on ad hoc basis as departmental enquiry was going on under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules which provides for imposition of major penalties and a criminal case was also pending against him under Section 380, IPC. The promotion was naturally ad hoc subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry and the criminal case. In the ordinary course, in view of his exoneration in the departmental enquiry envisaged in the order of promotion, and discharge in the criminal case, the (ad hoc) promotion on the post of Senior Bench Reader would have been regularized, but as circumstances would have it, the petitioner was awarded the penalty of reversion in rank in another departmental enquiry viz. D.E. No. 11/1986; pursuant to which he was reverted to the post of Bench Reader on 112.1987. The order was unsuccessfully challenged firstly, by an administrative appeal before the Chief Justice and thereafter by writ petition and Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, but in vain. Reversion to the post of Bench Reader thus became final and the petitioner was compulsorily retired as Bench Reader on 30.06.1992. In such circumstances on direction can be issued for his promotion on the post of Senior Bench Reader, The feeder post of Office Superintendent being Senior Bench Reader and the petitioner not being holder of that post, it is plain that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. It is true that reversion to the post of Bench Reader on 112.1987 pursuant to penalty awarded in D.E. No. 11/1986 was not to operate for all times. It is true that reversion to the post of Bench Reader on 112.1987 pursuant to penalty awarded in D.E. No. 11/1986 was not to operate for all times. However, he stood compulsorily retired on 30.06.1992. 8. The case of the petitioner was nevertheless considered pursuant to the direction in Writ Petition No. 1515/1986 but on consideration of his service record etc. he was not found fit for promotion to the post of Senior Bench Reader and higher posts. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was subjected to a number of departmental proceedings and in at least ten of them he was awarded penalty. 9. In the instant case, he has challenged the orders in four of them being D.E. Nos. 7/84, 7/85, 8/85 & 11/86-all under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 10. It was submitted that the proceedings were initiated to harass the petitioner and enquiries were held without giving proper opportunity, and without supplying copy of the enquiry report, penalties were awarded. We are not inclined to examine the submission at this stage. As a matter of fact, it would be an academic exercise to consider the question, for, even if any fault is found with the conduct of the enquiry, it cannot ultimately inure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner stands compulsorily retired with effect from 30.06.1992 and by reason of the dismissal of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3001/89 declining to interfere, the order has attained finality; as such, no useful purpose will be served by going into the question. The petitioner cannot be reinstated in service and if so, the question as to whether the enquiries were conducted in accordance with law or not does not really arise for consideration. His case for promotion was nevertheless considered pursuant to the direction in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1515/86 and by a reasoned order, the claim was rejected on 211.1993. We do not find any error in the said order. It is well settled that no employee can claim right to promotion; he can only claim right of consideration. The case of the petitioner having been considered and rejected, no direction is called for. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.