Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1875 (RAJ)

D. K. Jain v. Rajasthan Housing Board

2007-10-01

R.S.CHAUHAN, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Junior Assistants of the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'Board') who were dealing with the Accounts work in Divisions were not considered for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants by the Junior Selection Committee (for short 'JCS') of the Board in its meeting held on May 24, 1980. This issue was raised in the 88th meeting of the Board held on November 27, 1980 and it was decided to review the decision of JSC taken in its meeting dated May 24, 1980. Thereafter meeting of JSC was again held on March 4, 1980 and pursuant to decision taken in the meeting the appellants were promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant vide order dated March 31, 1981. Provisional and Final seniority lists of existing Accounts Assistants were respectively published on September 24, 1981 and March 29, 1985. The respondents Arvind Kumar Ojha and R.S. Punia assailed the final seniority list dated March 29, 1985 and subsequent orders in the writ petition before the Single Bench by filing the writ petition on October 15, 1988. Learned Single Judge vide order dated July 3, 1997 allowed the writ petition and set aside the seniority list dated March 29, 1985 and subsequent seniority lists of Accounts Assistants. Hence this appeal. 2. Contextual facts depict that under the provisions of Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1976 (for short 1976 Regulation') framed in exercise of Section 53 of Rajasthan Housing Board Act from the post of Accounts Assistant a promotional channel was provided to the post of Assistant. A Junior Assistant with 5 years experience for undergraduates and 3 years experience for graduates can be promoted to the post of Assistant. Another channel was provided a Junior Assistant with 5 years experience for undergraduates working in Accounts Branch and 3 years experience for Commerce Graduates can be promoted to the post of Assistant. Admittedly respondents Arvind Kumar Ojha and R.S. Punia were appointed on the post of Junior Assistants respectively on March 13, 1975 and February 12, 1975, much after the appointment of appellants. The JSC considered their names for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants in the year 1980 and they were promoted to the post of Accounts Assistants vide order dated July 11, 1980 and they were kept on probation for a period of two years. The JSC considered their names for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants in the year 1980 and they were promoted to the post of Accounts Assistants vide order dated July 11, 1980 and they were kept on probation for a period of two years. Various Junior Assistants, who were dealing with accounts work in Divisions and were not considered for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants, made representation to the Board. The Board discussed the issue in its 88th meeting held on November 27, 1980 and following decision was taken : "88.10 Issue of Accounts Assistant who were not considered for promotion by DPC held on 24.5.80 on the ground that their experience of Accounts work in 'Division' was not considered as experience of 'Accounts Branch.' The Board discussed this matter in detail. Members of the Board were of the view that literal interpretation of the word 'Accounts Branch' debarred some Junior Assistants having experience in accounts for being considered for promotion as Accounts Assistant, because the employees working under the Chief Accounts Officer alone are not dealing with the Accounts work but those of the employees working in the Division who are doing Accounts work are also part and parcel of the Accounts Branch. It was, therefore, decided that the decision of DPC held on 24.5.80 regarding promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant should be reviewed in the light of the broader meaning of 'Accounts Branch' and after reconsideration names be arranged as per seniority in the lower cadre." In view of the aforesaid decision meeting of JSC was held on March 4, 1981 to reconsider the matter of promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants. The JSC after reviewing and considering the names of Junior Assistants, drew a list of eligible persons to be promoted to the post of Accounts Assistants and their seniority was arranged as per the seniority in the lower cadre. The JSC examined the record of the appellants and found them eligible for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistants. The provisional and final seniority lists were respectively published on September 24, 1981 and March 29, 1985. Being aggrieved by the publication of seniority lists and subsequent orders Arvind Kumar Ojha and R.S. Punia filed writ petition which was decided as indicated above. 3. The provisional and final seniority lists were respectively published on September 24, 1981 and March 29, 1985. Being aggrieved by the publication of seniority lists and subsequent orders Arvind Kumar Ojha and R.S. Punia filed writ petition which was decided as indicated above. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the impugned order as well as other material on record. 4. In our considered opinion a Junior Assistant who handled accounts work at the Divisional office of the Board had right to be considered for promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant and his experience gained in the Divisional office had to be considered for the purpose of eligibility for the post of Accounts Assistants. The Accounts Branch of the Board cannot only include the Headquarter but also include the Accounts Branches working at Divisional Level. The experience gained by the appellants of Accounts work at the Divisional Level could not have been ignored and they were entitled to be promoted on the basis of their experience of accounts work at the Divisional Level. In Dr. Asim Kumar Boss v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 345 : [1982(3) SLR 97 (SC)], the Apex Court held that experience includes experience on regular post as well as ex-officio post. 5. We also notice that resolution passed by the Board in its 88th meeting held on November 27, 1980 was not a subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge however did not consider this aspect. Even this fact was also ignored that the year allotted to the appellants was earlier than the respondents Arvind Kumar Ojha and R.S. Punia. 6. Any employee may be asked by the Board to handle accounts work at any place either at the Headquarter or at the Divisional Level. Employee who is asked to handle accounts work at Headquarter cannot have supremacy over the employee who is handling accounts work at Divisional Level. In giving supremacy to the employees working at the Headquarters over the employees of the Divisional Level, learned Single Judge, in our humble view, committed illegality and, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. As a result of above discussion, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated July 3, 1997. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******