Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1214 (RAJ)

SURAJBHAN v. RAJEN HABIB KHWAJA

2015-07-02

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This contempt petition was filed for compliance of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court, which had allowed the writ petition, and while setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, directed the respondents to go ahead with the selection process for promotion to the post of Map Mounter, for which the petitioner had passed the Trade Test, and to refer the matter back to the Committee to consider the candidature of the incumbents, who had qualified the Trade Test for promotion to the post of Map Mounter under the scheme in the recruitment Rules of the Department of Geological Survey of India, Western Region, Jaipur. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 16.04.2013, is quoted as below:- “Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dt.6th of December, 2010 passed by the ld. Tribunal so also the decision of respondents canceling the process of selection vide order dt.12th March, 2009 initiated pursuant to circular dt.6th of November, 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to go ahead with the selection process further and refer the matter back to the Committee to consider the candidature of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test for promotion to the post of Map Mounter and take appropriate decision, as per the Scheme of Recruitment Rules. The exercise, as indicated above, be undertaken by the department within three months. No costs.” 3. A speaking order was passed by respondent on 20.08.2013, in which it is stated that the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) along with three others, in which Shri Pooran Mal Meena was selected for promotion to the post of Map Mounter. The speaking order, dated 20.08.2013, is annexed with the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the order, in the letter and spirit. The Rules for recruitment were amended in the year 2013, under which the educational qualification for the post was enhanced from Class-VIII to Secondary examination. The speaking order, dated 20.08.2013, is annexed with the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the order, in the letter and spirit. The Rules for recruitment were amended in the year 2013, under which the educational qualification for the post was enhanced from Class-VIII to Secondary examination. Shri Pooran Mal Meena, who was earlier promoted as 'Daftry', was asked to step down and was considered for promotion, and since he fulfilled the educational qualification under the new Rules, he was given promotion, defeating the rights of the petitioner, in the malafide exercise of powers. Shri Pooran Mal Meena was not interested in promotion. 5. The petitioner has tried to explain from the note-sheets of the department, that the selections were made under the new Rules, which were not applicable, inasmuch as the recruitment proceedings were initiated on 06.11.2008, when the petitioner was eligible and had also passed the Trade Test. 6. It is further submitted that in the reply, a wrong statement has been made by the Head of the Department that the selections were made under the old Rules, whereas the note-sheet clearly demonstrates that new Rules were taken into consideration. Further, it is stated that Shri Pooran Mal Meena was not interested in promotion. He was asked to step down and to offer his candidature, to defeat the rights of the petitioner. 7. A speaking order has been passed on 20.08.2013, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. The proceedings of the DPC, would show that the petitioner, Shri Surajbhan was also considered and was empanelled at S.No.4, and thus, it cannot be said that the respondents did not consider him deliberately in defiance or disobeyed the order passed by this Court. 8. The question as to whether the new Rules were made applicable, and whether the proceedings suffered from any bias, in which Shri Pooran Mal Meena was alleged to have been persuaded to step down, to defeat the rights of the petitioner, is a fresh cause of action arisen to the petitioner, in which an enquiry may be called for as to whether old Rules were followed, or whether the respondents acted in malafide exercise of powers, to deprive promotion to the petitioner. In the contempt petition, these enquiries cannot be made as there was no such directions given by this Court that the applicant should be promoted. 9. Prima-facie, we are not satisfied that the selections took place under the new Rules, or that the respondents acted with any ill-motive to defeat the rights of the petitioner for promotion. If the petitioner succeeds in demonstrating the same in a petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal may consider to grant relief. 10. We are satisfied that the respondents have neither disobeyed nor refused to deliberately comply with the orders of the Court. 11. The contempt petition is dismissed.