Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 830 (RAJ)

JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA v. NARESH PAL GANGWAR

2015-04-13

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
ORDER : 1. In this Contempt Petition, the applicants have made a complaint that the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 29.10.2013, has not been complied with, inasmuch as the operative portion of the order, that the respondents would take immediate steps to compute their entitlements and release the consequential financial benefits to them for the services rendered, if not already done, would mean that the applicants were given all the reliefs which they were claiming in the writ petition. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The review petition has also been dismissed. The Special Appeal was thereafter dismissed on merits, following the legal proposition, as affirmed in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Godika & Ors., [1993 (1) U.J. (SC) 538], in which it was held that the manner in which the Rule is to work, namely first all the persons in Group 'E' to Group 'D', Section II, will be considered for promotion moving to Group 'F', if necessary, for filling only the remaining vacancies by selecting outstanding amongst them who satisfy the requirement of Explanation to Rule 25(11), and which ensures fairness to all, while also maintaining efficiency in the administration. It was held that a reasonable interpretation of the Rules provide that if the need arises to look to Group 'F' for filling the remaining vacancies on account of want of suitable persons in Group 'E', the promotions may be given. Those found unsuitable in Group 'E' cannot thus complain of discrimination if persons duly qualified and more suitable performing similar functions are selected, since the unsuitable left out in Group 'E' are excluded from the competition on the ground of unsuitability and cease to remain contenders for the remaining posts. 3. Those found unsuitable in Group 'E' cannot thus complain of discrimination if persons duly qualified and more suitable performing similar functions are selected, since the unsuitable left out in Group 'E' are excluded from the competition on the ground of unsuitability and cease to remain contenders for the remaining posts. 3. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal, held as follows:- “A plain reading of the above quoted text would demonstrate that their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court though had noticed that appointment to Group 'D' posts were to be made through promotion to the extent of 100% to the respective identities of the incumbents in Group 'E' and Group 'F' had been maintained and that considering the manner of operation of the Rules for the said exercise, incumbent in Group 'E' were to get precedence in the matter of consideration for such promotion and it was only in absence of the suitable candidates in Group 'E' that the remaining vacancies are to be filled up by Group 'F' incumbents. The comprehension of a combined seniority list of group 'E' and group 'F' candidates on the basis of the norms, as contemplated in Rule 28(7) as a condition precedent for recommendation for promotion to group 'D' was thus neither entertained nor approved. Though in the course of the arguments, the appellants did endeavour to impress upon us to take a different view on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court on the same issue, it is noticeable that the decision rendered in Rajendra Kumar Godika(supra) had arisen from the verdict of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.694-96 of 1993 and 697-97 of 1993 decided on February 18, 1993. Having regard to the legal proposition enunciated in Rajendra Kumar Godika(supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue raised before us, we see no reason to take a different view form the one recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and the order dated 7.1.2013 rejecting the review petition. On being queried by us, the appellants have submitted that appellant No.1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Shri Bhagwan Gupta (writ petitioner No.4) have since retired from the post of Principal.” 4. It appears that at the time of dismissing the Special Appeal, a submission was made that the appellants have not been paid the entire superannuation benefits. On being queried by us, the appellants have submitted that appellant No.1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Shri Bhagwan Gupta (writ petitioner No.4) have since retired from the post of Principal.” 4. It appears that at the time of dismissing the Special Appeal, a submission was made that the appellants have not been paid the entire superannuation benefits. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal, made an observation apparently in equitable exercise of its jurisdiction as follows:- “Be that as it may, the respondents would take immediate steps to compute their entitlements and release the consequential financial benefits to them for the services rendered, if not already done. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.” 5. The applicants, appearing in person, submit that by concluding portion of the judgment, their claim was considered and allowed, and that the consequential financial benefits, would mean the same benefits which they were claiming in the writ petition, namely benefits of promotion and its monitory consequences, when they claimed to be entitled to be promoted as Principal in Group 'E'. 6. We have gone through the judgment and do not find that any relief, of the nature claimed by the applicants, was allowed. It was by way of passing reference and in equity, the Division Bench directed that if the financial benefits, on superannuation, have not been computed, the same will be released. 7. In the reply to this Contempt Petition, it is stated that all the retiral benefits have been paid over to the applicants, the details whereof have been given in the reply. 8. We do not find that any contempt is made out against the respondents, inasmuch as the relief as conceived by the applicants, was not granted to them. Their claim that they were entitled to be placed in the combined seniority list and promoted earlier as Principal, was not accepted by the Court. 9. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. The notices are discharged.