JUDGMENT 1. - The lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions. Heard the parties. 2. Mr. Fateh Karan Mehdu, petitioner is present in person. On behalf of respondents, Mr. R.S. Balara, Additional Officer-in-Charge of the case is present. The case is listed in today's cause list at Serial No. 32 in the "admission with notice serve-reply filed" category. They have agreed for the final disposal of the case at this stage. 3. Mr. Fateh Karan Mehdu, petitioner appearing in person, submits that after his compulsory retirement order was quashed and set aside by this Court with all consequential benefits, while allowing his earlier writ petition being SBCWP No. 3647/2000-Fateh Karan Mehru v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 12th September, 2005 , which order become final, as no further appeal was filed by the respondent Department. The petitioner submits that he has illegally been denied promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director (Mines), though he was reinstated back in the services on 21.06.2006. 4. The operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2005 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of petitioner, is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- "As stated above, the screening committee while considering service record of the petitioner taken into consideration various events of the service career of the petitioner. The screening committee considered the fact that a minor punishment i.e. of stoppage of one grade annual increment was imposed upon the petitioner on 3.8.1988. The screening committee also taken into consideration the orders of punishment dated 4.3.1991 and 25.1.1993 which were ultimately quashed either at appellate or revisional stage. The screening committee also taken into consideration the facts with regard to placement of the petitioner under suspension in the year 1988 and in the year 1999. The suspension of the petitioner in the year 1988 was revoked in the year 1990, however, no disciplinary action then was taken against the petitioner. The screening committee beside the above also taken into consideration the adverse remark entered in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1985-86 and a criminal case said to be registered and challenged against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption act, 1980. With regard to criminal case referred above it is the position admitted between the parties that the petitioner has not been challenged for any such case. With regard to criminal case referred above it is the position admitted between the parties that the petitioner has not been challenged for any such case. The resultant position is that only adverse material against the petitioner was a minor punishment imposed upon him in the year 1988 and a adverse remark in APAR for the year 1985-86, on basis of this material the petitioner has been placed under compulsory retirement. It is true and the petitioner faced certain disciplinary proceedings during his service career but at all the time except once he was exonerated from the charges. After exoneration from the charges alleged such material in normal course cannot be taken into consideration by the appointment authority for making an opinion that retention of the officer concerned is not in public interest. In the present case the committee concerned was aware of the fact that except once the petitioner was exonerated from the charges either at appellate or revisional stage and this fact all the more improves case of the petitioner to say that the higher authorities while considering his case did not find any force in charges for which he was tried. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case there was no sufficient material available with the respondents to form an opinion that retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest. The next question as to whether the appointing authority was under obligation to accept the recommendation made by the screening committee ipse dixit. From perusal of the record for the screening committee it appears that the committee in quite vague manner noted down certain events of the service career of the petitioner and made a recommendation for his premature retirement from service. The screening committee has nowhere considered as to how the retention of the petitioner was not in public interest. The appointing authority acted upon the recommendation made by the screening committee and passed the order impugned. The appointing authority before passing the order impugned has not made its own opinion for placing the petitioner under retirement while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The appointing authority acted upon the recommendation made by the screening committee and passed the order impugned. The appointing authority before passing the order impugned has not made its own opinion for placing the petitioner under retirement while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The screening committee is nothing but a body assisting to the appointing authority on the basis of factual considerations made by the screening committee is required to reach at a specific conclusion by forming its own opinion as to whether the retention of the officer concerned in service is in public interest or not. In the present case the appointing authority failed to form its own opinion in this regard. The appointing authority simply acted upon the recommendations made by the screening committee the powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 which required to be exercised by the appointing authority and not by its assisting committee. In view of it the order impugned is also in violation of provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.9.2000 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Govind Mathur), J." 5. The reasons assigned by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition filed is given in para 7, which is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- "7. That the contents of para No. 7 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner they are averred. Because Shri Arun Kumari Kothari along with the petitioner and many others were appointed by order dated 5.5.1981 whereby they were appointed on the post of Assistant Mining Engineer on the basis of recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission wherein Shri Arun Kumar Kothari has been shown to be senior to the petitioner. It is wrong to say that petitioner is senior to the private respondent Shri K.K. Bora and that he has been given promotion to the post of Superintending Mining despite being junior to the petitioner. It is wrong to say that petitioner is senior to the private respondent Shri K.K. Bora and that he has been given promotion to the post of Superintending Mining despite being junior to the petitioner. In SBCWP No. 6698/2011, the petitioner has sought for promotion from the year 2000-01 on the post of Superintending Mining Engineer and the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) considered his candidature for promotion to the post of Superintending Mining Engineer in its meeting held on 15.10.2012 and on the basis of recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Mining Engineer by order dated 23.10.2012 considering him for the vacancies of year 2000-01 and he has been given all consequential benefits from the year of selection as is evident from order dated 23.10.2012 (Annex. 9). Since all the benefits as prayed for by the petitioner in the above referred petition filed before the Hon'ble Court were granted by order dated 23.10.2012 (Annex. 9), the said petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 9.7.2013. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioner was senior to Shri Arun Kumar Kothari and private respondent K.K. Bora in any manner. There were 5 posts of Superintending Mining Engineer vacant in all in the year 1999-2000 out of which 3 were to be selected on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 2 only on the basis of merit. It is also submitted that out of these 5 posts 2 were reserved for SC and 1 for ST and following persons were selected for promotion to the post of Superintending Mining Engineer for the year 1999-2000:- 1. Shri V.D. Bohra (seniority-cum-merit) 2. Shri H.M. Gupta (merit) 3. Shri K.K. Bora (merit) 4. Shri D.S. Maru (SC) (seniority-cum-merit) 5. Shri R.L. Udai (SC) (seniority-cum-merit) The Departmental Promotion Committee did not find the petitioner eligible for promotion on the post of Superintending Mining Engineer on the basis of merit. It is humbly submitted that 6 posts were vacant in the year 2000-01 out of which 1 post was reserved for ST and 3 posts were to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 3 on the basis of merit only and following persons were selected and promoted to the post of Superintending Mining Engineer for the year 2000-01:- 1. Shri B.L. Sharma (seniority-cum-merit) 2. Shri B.L. Sharma (seniority-cum-merit) 2. Shri B.R.K. Ranga (merit) 3. Shri R.R. Sharma (seniority-cum-merit) (post vacant and under sealed envelope) 4. Shri F.K. Mehdu (seniority-cum-merit) 5. Shri V.K. Sharma (merit) 6. Shri M.C. Sharma (seniority-cum-merit) It is humbly submitted that in the year 2002-03 posts of Additional Director (Mines) were vacant and both the posts were reserved one each for SC and ST category. The DPC convened its meeting for consideration of the candidature for that year, however, since no candidate from ST was found suitable under zone of consideration, therefore, Shri M.C. Goyal was promoted against the said vacancy and Shri D.S. Maru was promoted in the SC category on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is humbly submitted that 2 posts of Additional Director (Mines) were available (1 being backlog of ST category and 1 General) for the year 2007-08 wherein Shri K.K. Bora (private respondent) was promoted on general category post and Shri K.K. Hirat was promoted in the ST category on the basis of seniority on the recommendation of the DPC. The DPC has considered the case of the petitioner for promotion for the year 2008-09, however, the DPC found that Annual Appraisal Reports of the petitioner were not available and that the petitioner has remained under suspension in the period from 23.5.1988 to 8.1.1990, 20.4.1999 to 12.9.2000 and 6.3.2008 to 5.5.2011 and that he was compulsorily retired on 12.9.2000, however, was reinstated pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Court. It is humbly submitted that the charge sheet under rule 16 of the CCA Rules were issued by the Department of Personnel on 27.01.2011 and 9.4.2012 and the same is pending enquiry. The petitioner does not have the actual (practical) field experience on the post of Superintending Mining Engineer and since he has not been on the relevant post for 11 years out of preceding 20 years and taking into consideration his antecedents and service record, the DPC did not find him suitable to be promoted for the second highest post in the hierarchy of the State Mining Services for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2013-14. Therefore, the order issued on 8.8.2013 on the basis of recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 1.8.2013 is perfectly in accordance with law. Therefore, the order issued on 8.8.2013 on the basis of recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 1.8.2013 is perfectly in accordance with law. The promotions to the post of Additional Director (Mines) accorded by order dated 8.8.2013 on the basis of recommendation of the DPC held on 1.8.2013 are as under:- 1. Shri R.K. Jain (year 2004-05) 2. Shri K.K. Bora (year 2007-08) 3. Shri R.K. Hirat (ST) (year 2007-08) 4. Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma (year 2008-09) 5. Shri B.R.K. Ranga (year 2009-10) 6. Shri R.L. Udai (year 2013-14) 7. Shri Pankaj Gehlot (post lying vacant for year 2013-14 as the record was incomplete). 8. Shri S.B. Saxena (year 2013-14) (under sealed envelope) 9. Shri R.K. Nalwaya (year 2013-14)" 6. The petitioner further submits that by an interim order granted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 12.08.2013, one post of Additional Director (Mines), which was lying vacant, has been ordered to be kept vacant and the said post is still lying vacant for consideration of the petitioner's case. In the DPC meet on 01.08.2013, the candidature of the persons, who were junior to him, namely, S/Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Mr. Pankaj Gehlot, Mr. R.K. Nalwaya, were considered for promotion to the post of Additional Director (Mines) and their names were recommended for promotion but ignoring the petitioner's candidature by the DPC on the purported ground of pendency of this writ petition and that period of absence under compulsory retirement, which was quashed later on, cannot be counted. 7. The representation filed by the petitioner in this regard has been disposed of by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel vide the order dated 27.01.2011 (Page 142 of the paper book) giving the reference to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. In this respect, the petitioner submits that the joint enquiry was pending against 3 incumbents including the present petitioner, but the remaining 2 persons, namely, S/Sh. R.K. Hirat and Mahesh Mathur, were so promoted even during the pendency of the enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1958, to the posts of Additional Director (Mines) and Superintending Engineer (Mining) ignoring the petitioner's candidature. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director (Mines). He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director (Mines). 8. The Officer-in-Charge, who is present, opposes the writ petition on the ground raised in para 7 of the reply to writ petition, quoted above. 9. Having heard the parties, who are present in person, and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no good reason assigned by the respondents for not considering the petitioner's case in the DPC met on 01.08.2013 for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director (Mines). Once his compulsory retirement order was quashed and set aside by this Court vide the order dated 12.09.2005, quoted above, and he was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, pursuant to which he was reinstated back in the services on 21.01.2006, the period during which he was not duty under the order dated 12.09.2000, has to be added as service period as directed by this Court. The petitioner's case for promotion to the next higher post, therefore, was required to be considered by the DPC in terms of said judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court. 10. The reasons assigned in para 7 of the reply filed by the respondents that some enquiry was pending against the petitioner, is also not sustainable because as submitted by the petitioner that the other two persons in the same enquiry, which was pending against 3 of them, if two of them could be so promoted to the post of Additional Director (Mines) and Superintending Engineer (Mines) respectively, there remains no good or justifiable reason for not considering the case of the petitioner on this purported ground of pendency of the enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules of 1958. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is, accordingly, allowed. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Additional Director (Mines) by a review DPC to be held now within a period of 2 months from today and if the petitioner is otherwise found to be fit for promotion, the consequential orders may be issued by the respondents with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted in pursuance to the recommendations of the DPC held on 01.08.2013. No orders as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.W.As. allowed - No costs - M.Ps. closed. *******