Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 130 (RAJ)

Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State

2012-01-11

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Educational Service being holder of the post of Head Master in Secondary School for boys. As per the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970, the Head Masters, Secondary Schools are having avenues for promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School/BSTC/RTC boys. 2. The respondents initiated a process of appointment by way of promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School in accordance with Rules of 1970 and for that purpose, a Departmental Promotion Committee met on 07.3.2008. Being eligible, candidature of the petitioner was also considered for promotion however, the recommendations of the Committee were kept in sealed cover, as on the date of consideration, the SBCWP NO. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors. petitioner as per the respondents was facing disciplinary action in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1958 (herein after referred as the Rules of 1958). 3. By this petition for writ, it is claimed by the petitioner that he is required to be promoted to the post of Principal in view of the fact that the Departmental Promotion Committee though met on 07.3.2008, but was considering candidature of the petitioner and other eligible persons for promotion against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2001-2002, and at that time, no disciplinary action was pending against him. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, no charge-sheet under the Rules of 1958 has yet been served upon the petitioner. 4. Per contra, while defending the impugned action, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was issued on 28.10.2004, and subsequent thereto on 31.8.2010, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee rightly kept its recommendation pertaining to the petitioner under sealed cover.3 SBCWP NO. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 07.3.2008 was considering candidature of eligible incumbents including the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School against the vacancies of the year 2001-2002. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 07.3.2008 was considering candidature of eligible incumbents including the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School against the vacancies of the year 2001-2002. It is also not in dispute that at the first instance the charge-sheet that has yet not been served upon the petitioner was issued by the respondents on 28.10.2004, that is subsequent to the year 2001-2002. So far as the charge-sheet said to be issued on 31.8.2010 is concerned, that could not have been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee being met on 07.3.2008 that is quite earlier than the date of issuance of the charge-sheet aforesaid. 7. The Departmental Promotion Committee while considering candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal would have considered the material existing and available, relating to the petitioner, up to 31.3.2002 that is the last day of the vacancy year-2001-2002. Any adverse materia SBCWP NO. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors. that came into being subsequent to the date aforesaid, could not have been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee while examining candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion against the vacancies of the year 2001-2002. Whatever material that is taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee to keep the recommendation of the DPC in sealed cover came in existence subsequent to 31.3.2002, as such, that has been erroneously taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 07.3.2008. In such circumstances, placement of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in sealed cover relating to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School from the post of Head Master, Secondary School is not in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition, thus, deserves acceptance, accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and materialise the recommendations given by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. The respondents are require to execute the SBCWP NO. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and materialise the recommendations given by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School. The respondents are require to execute the SBCWP NO. 926/2011 Uma Shanker Kiradu v. State & Ors. direction aforesaid expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of three months form today.Petition allowed. *******