IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5654/1996
{Niranjan Lal Sharma Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Sikar and Others}
Date of Order ::: 19.01.2010
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri D.P. Pujari, Counsel for petitioner
Shri Jinesh Jain, Government Counsel for respondents
####
By the Court:-
petitioner Niranjan Lal Sharma filed the present writ petition way back in the year 1996 challenging the promotion granted to the respondents No.2 to 4 on the post of Senior Reader.
Shri D.P. Pujari, who was appearing for the petitioner, pleads no instructions in the matter, therefore, Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, was heard.
The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents No.2 to 4 were promoted by the District Judge, Sikar, vide order dated 29.03.1996 ignoring his rightful claim. In doing so, Rule 14(iii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Subordinate Courts) Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1956 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1956’) has been violated. Similarly, Rule 14(vii) of the Rules of 1956 has also been violated, which requires that the zone of eligibility for promotion shall be five times the number of vacancies to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit, as the case may be. It is contended that the word merit alone quoted in Rule 14(iii) of the Rules of 1956 is meant to subserve the objective enshirines in Article 335 of the Constitution which mandates that reservation has to be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration; promotion granted to respondent No.2 Shanker Lal has been wrongly given. Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.1996 and the respondents, by their arbitrary action, deprived him of his right of promotion. The respondents No.2 to 4, who have been promoted, were junior to him. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, ‘the DPC’) has also not adopted fair and reasonable criteria in adjudging merit of the candidates. The petitioner has been most obedient, honest and sincere worker. There was no year-wise determination of vacancies. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of promotion of respondents No.2 to 4 be quashed and set aside and, the review DPC may be directed to be convened for considering afresh merit of the candidates including that of the petitioner and; the petitioner, if found suitable, may be ordered to be promoted on the post of Senor Reader with effect from the date such post fell vacant on 29.03.1996.
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that Rules 14(iii) and 14(vii) of the Rules of 1956, have been strictly followed while considering the case for the promotion. The criteria for promotion as per Rule 14(iii) is merit alone. Since the private respondents had better service record especially the respondents No.3 and 4, and were found more meritorious than the petitioner, they were given promotion. So far the respondent No.2 is concerned, he was promoted due to reservation of one post belonging to SC category and in the roster point his name appeared at Serial No.1 and accordingly he was promoted. It is denied that zone of consideration was restricted only to three times; in fact the zone of consideration was five times the number of vacancies and 15 candidates were considered for promotion. Since the petitioner’s merit was not found worth promotion, he was not recommended for promotion by the DPC. He had many adversities in his service record. He was awarded recorded and unrecorded warnings. There were disciplinary proceedings pending against him before his retirement, and the same were concluded by awarding penalties. He could not therefore be considered fit for being promoted. Reference is made to two departmental enquiries initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958; out of which one was of the year 1982, when the petitioner was posted as Reader to the Court of Munsif, Fatehpur (Sikar), and allegation was that he acted negligently and did not check the cash-book of Assistant Nazir nor the cash was physically verified by him daily; and another departmental enquiry was of the year 1989, when he was working as Reader to the M.J.M. Srimadhopur (Sikar) and the allegation was that when the Presiding Officer was on leave, he took bribe and, in the original file of the suit, he made cuttings in the original note-sheet. Since the petitioner was due for retirement, therefore, keeping it in view, he was awarded penalty of warning, and DPC did not find him meritorious.
Having gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and upon hearing learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perusal of the material on record especially keeping in view that Rule 14(iii) of the Rules of 1956 postulates the criteria for promotion to be merit alone and, keeping in view that, the respondents, especially the respondents No.3 and 4, were found more meritorious than the petitioner, who had better service record, and the respondent No.2 was promoted on the basis of his belonging to reserved category and the post was also due to be filled in from that category as per roster system, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//