Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1692 (RAJ)

Vimlesh Vyas v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-20

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The brief facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner was appointed as 'Sayis' in the respondent department on 31.08.1984. Vide order dated 04.09.1989, he was sent for training for Live Stock Assistant in terms of the Rules. Vide order dated 22.10.1994, he was promoted as Lab Attendant. Vide order dated 26.04.2002, all the employees working as Sayis, Jaldhari and Sweeper with the department were absorbed as Lab Attendant and the petitioner was also one of them. 2. It has been submitted in the writ petition that in the year 2008, an amendment was introduced in the Rules vide which it was decided that all the vacancies of Live Stock Assistant would be filed by direct recruitment. The earlier provision was that 25% of seats of Live Stock Assistant would be filled by promotion and 75% by way of direct recruitment. Against the said amendment, a writ petition was preferred by many of the employees, the petitioner being one of them. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2015 and it was held that the amendment cannot be made effective with a retrospective effect. Meaning thereby it was directed that 25% of the seats of Live Stock Assistant would be filled up by promotion only. The petitioner therefore prayed that he be promoted as Live Stock Assistant but the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2016 on the premise that as he had not earlier been promoted as a Dresser (Lab Attendant), he cannot be promoted directly as Live Stock Assistant. Against the said rejection the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 is factually incorrect as the petitioner was very much promoted as Lab Attendant and was working as such since the year 1994. In support of her submission she relied upon the experience certificate placed on record which shows that the petitioner had been working as a Lab Attendant since 22.10.1994. She also placed on record the seniority list dated 03.05.2002 wherein the date of joining of the petitioner on the post of Dresser (Lab Attendant) is shown to be 03.10.1994 and the year of getting training for the purpose of Live Stock Assistant is shown to be the year 1991-92. 4. She also placed on record the seniority list dated 03.05.2002 wherein the date of joining of the petitioner on the post of Dresser (Lab Attendant) is shown to be 03.10.1994 and the year of getting training for the purpose of Live Stock Assistant is shown to be the year 1991-92. 4. Counsel for the respondents on the contrary submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab Attendant in the year 1994 but he submitted that the same was on deputation and not a regular promotion. He therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion as Live Stock Assistant. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the order dated 22.10.1994 makes it crystal clear that the petitioner was promoted as Lab Attendant. The said order nowhere terms the said promotion to be a deputation or on temporary basis. It is also clear from the experience certificate issued by the competent authority as well as the seniority list placed on record that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab Attendant on 22.10.1994 and is since then working on the said post. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the order dated 29.04.2016 is factually as well as legally incorrect. 7. It is relevant the note that a controversy regarding the promotions in the respondent department from the post of Jaldhari, Sayis and Sweeper arose earlier too and was decided in the matter of SBCWP No. 1378/1992; Rajasthan Sahayak Karamchari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr (decided on 29.04.2002). Vide the said judgment, it was specifically held that the members of the petitioner-Union therein, holding the post of Jaldhari, Sayis and Sweeper are mandatorily to be accorded promotion according to their qualifications and experience. It is an admitted case here that the petitioner was appointed as Sayis with the department. Therefore, in terms of the said judgment also the petitioner is entitled for promotion. 8. In view of the above observation it is clear that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab Attendant in the year 1994 and therefore, now deserves to be promoted as Live Stock Assistant in terms of the applicable provisions of law. 9. The writ petition is therefore allowed. 8. In view of the above observation it is clear that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab Attendant in the year 1994 and therefore, now deserves to be promoted as Live Stock Assistant in terms of the applicable provisions of law. 9. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondents are directed to accord promotion to the petitioner on the post of Live Stock Assistant from the date the person junior to him was granted promotion. All the consequential benefits would follow. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the present order. 10. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.