Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Kishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-10

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner entered in services of the respondents being appointed as Laboratory Assistant under an order dated 9.4.1971. While serving on the post aforesaid he acquired Degree of Graduation in the year 1978 and then Bachelors Degree in Education in the year 1983. As per the petitioner, necessary information about having the qualifications aforesaid was conveyed to the competent authority by him under the representations dated 2.3.1984, 2.7.1985, 13.8.1985 and 13.2.2003. 2. The recruitment and other service conditions pertaining to the post of Laboratory Assistant are governed by the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1971"), wherein an avenue for promotion is available to the Laboratory Assistants for the post of Teacher Grade-II, subject to availability of the requisite qualification and experience. 3. According to the petitioner after having the qualification of Bachelors Degree in Education he was eligible to be considered for promotion but the respondents though promoted persons junior to him, did not consider his case for appointment as Teacher Grade-II by way of promotion. A writ petition bearing DB Civil Writ Petition No.3120/1988 was preferred by the petitioner in the year 1988 on being superseded in the year 1985 by his juniors and that came to be disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents for appropriate determination of vacancies pertaining to the promotional post. It is also stated that the fact about availability of Bachelors Degree in Education was also mentioned in an earlier petition for writ No.3120/1988 preferred by the petitioner. 4. By this petition for writ the petitioner is claiming for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II from the date the same was accorded to his juniors. It is asserted that the respondents should have considered case of the petitioner for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1984-85, but that was not done without having any valid reason. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents accepting that the petitioner acquired eligibility in the year 1983, however, his name was not placed in the list of eligible candidates on the count that necessary information pertaining to educational qualification available with the petitioner was noticed first time in the year 1990, being supplied on 15.10.1990. On receipt of such information his name was included in the list of eligible candidates in the year 1990-91, and promotion thereafter was given under an order dated 9.7.1991. According to the respondents due to non communication of the acquisition of qualification eligibility it was not at all possible to include the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates. 6. By submitting rejoinder the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition for writ and asserted that by several representations the fact of having educational qualification was conveyed to the competent authority. The representations submitted by the petitioner are also placed on record alongwith rejoinder. 7. From perusal of the representations it appears that the District Education Officer concerned also forwarded representations submitted by the petitioner to the competent authority for necessary action. The document Anx.9 dated 2.3.1984 was addressed to the District Education Officer, Nagaur and was sent to him through proper channel. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Degana, where the petitioner was working, forwarded the same to the District Education Officer. The communication Anx.10 dated 1.7.1985 was also submitted by the petitioner to the District Education Officer (Boys), Nagaur through proper channel and that too was forwarded to the District Education Officer with a recommendation to include name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II. The subsequent representations submitted by the petitioner which are available on record too were sent to the competent authority through proper channel. The document Anx.11 dated 13.8.1985 is addressed to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan and that was also forwarded to him through proper channel. 8. Beside the above, the writ petition No.3120/1988 was filed by the petitioner in the year 1988 wherein too the fact about availability of the qualification of Bachelors Degree in Education was mentioned. In the writ petition aforesaid a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents and as such the respondents were certainly having knowledge about availability of requisite qualification with the petitioner. As such, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner communicated his qualification first time in the year 1990 is not at all correct. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, in the year 1984 itself communicated the respondents about availability of the qualification of Bachelors Degree in Education with him. As such, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner communicated his qualification first time in the year 1990 is not at all correct. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, in the year 1984 itself communicated the respondents about availability of the qualification of Bachelors Degree in Education with him. The respondents should have acted upon that and should have included name of the petitioner in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II. No just and valid reason is available with the respondents for not doing so. 9. Quite half heartedly a preliminary objection is also raised by the respondents pertaining to delay in filing the petition for writ. True it is, in the cases relating to promotion a person agitating the cause is required to approach the courts as early as possible, and the delay and latches on the part of the person aggrieved may be fatal, however, in the instant matter the petitioner is regularly approaching the respondents by submitting representations and even to the extent of filing a petition for writ in the year 1988, but the respondents for no just and adequate reason acted thereupon. The petitioner before approaching this Court also submitted a notice for demand of justice through his counsel, but of no consequence. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the writ petition has been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. 10. As already stated, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 1985 against the vacancies of the year 1984-85, but his case was not considered by the respondents by not including him in the list of eligible candidates, though he was having necessary eligibility. The respondents as a matter of fact did not include the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates upto the year 1990 without having any adequate reason to do so. The petitioner was eligible to be considered for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II, thus, denial of the same is apparently bad. The same is highly unjust and arbitrary too, and as such in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition for writ, for the reasons given above, deserves acceptance. Accordingly the same is allowed. The same is highly unjust and arbitrary too, and as such in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition for writ, for the reasons given above, deserves acceptance. Accordingly the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Teacher Grade-II against the vacancies of the year 1984-85 and in the event of his being found suitable, promotion be accorded to him. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including fixation of pay (notional), but no actual payment. 12. No order to cost.Petition allowed. *******