IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4967/96 Babu Lal Mahavar Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 02/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. R.C. Joshi, for petitioner None present for respondents ***
Instant petition is directed against the order of Service Appellate Tribunal dt.12th January, 1996 [Ann.3] whereby claim in regard to determination of seniority in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II determined by the respondents was rejected.
Petitioner was initially appointed after his selection through RPSC on the post of Stenographer Gr.II in the department of Forest vide order dt.12th February, 1985 in pursuance thereof, he joined on 16th February, 1985 and was confirmed w.e.f. 15/10/92 vide order dt.03/03/93. However, vide order dt.7th January, 1989 [Ann.2], the list of employees working as Stenographer Gr.II was published and it was made clear that this may not be treated to be a seniority list, it appears to be list of all employees who are working in the department as Stenographer Gr.II.
The final seniority list was published on 6th May, 1991 obviously of those who were confirmed in the cadre. However, later on the final seniority list as on 01/04/93 was published on 3rd March, 1994 by that time petitioner also stood confirmed and his name was assigned at Serial No.39. Those who were senior to him in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II were promoted vide order dt.10/07/92 as Personal Assistant. The petitioner challenged the order dt.10th July, 1992 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected vide judgment impugned.
His grievance was that he being member of reserved category is entitled to be considered against the reserved vacancies and apart from it, seniority list has not been properly assigned to him in terms of R.27 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957.
It will be relevant to mention that those, who were promoted as Personal Assistant vide order dt.10th July, 1992, were senior to him and the petitioner by that time was not confirmed in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II and seniority of Stenographer Gr.II is to be determined from the date of confirmation in terms of R.27 of the Rules, 1957.
It is not the case of the petitioner that any person who was promoted as Personal Assistant was junior to him in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II and this fact was averred by the respondents in their reply that apart from he being confirmed in the cadre w.e.f. 15/10/92, his name does not fall within the zone of consideration and merely because of reserved vacancy as alleged, still the petitioner could not have been considered for promotion unless he falls within the zone of consideration. Learned Tribunal has examined the complete material on record and finally observed that provisional list dt.7th January, 1989 was the list of temporary employees and it was mentioned that this list could not be made the basis for determination of seniority and for promotion and the final seniority list of confirmed employees was published in May, 1991 and those who were promoted as Personal Assistant their names find place at Serial No.9-12 in the seniority list of May, 1991 confirmed w.e.f. 1st October, 1983, 1st February, 1986, 1st February, 1987 and 1st June, 1990, whereas the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f 15th October, 1992 vide order dt.3rd March, 1993 and has also observed that seniority of the lowest post in the cadre is to be determined from the date of confirmation U/r.27 of the Rules and no person junior to him was promoted as Personal Assistant superseding candidature of the petitioner.
No contrary material came on record by which it could be inferred that while preparing final select list dt.6th May, 1991 or later seniority list published on 3rd March, 1994 [as on 1st April, 1993] in any manner has violated R.27 which postulates to determine the seniority of the lowest post in the cadre from the date of confirmation.
Counsel for petitioner submits that order dt.7th January, 1989 [Ann.2] clearly postulates about appointment in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II and those who are shown senior to him, they were appointed as Stenographer Gr.II, much thereafter, and in these circumstances, he cannot rank junior to them in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II and if his seniority stood revised, certainly he would have been considered for further promotion to the post of Personal Assistant which has been arbitrarily denied to him.
Submission made by Counsel for petitioner is without substance for the reason that seniority of post of Stenographer Gr.II being is the lowest post in the cadre is to be determined in terms of R.27 of the Rules from the date of confirmation and it has come on record that petitioner stood confirmed on the post of Stenographer Gr.II w.e.f. 15th October, 1992 and accordingly, his seniority was determined and no material has been placed on record by which it could be inferred that any person who was confirmed later on was considered for promotion.
So far as submission made with regard to consideration for promotion being jeopardized is concerned, as already observed promotions are made of eligible employees who fall within the zone of consideration and even if, contention raised in regard to vacancy being reserved for member of SC/ST, still unless he falls within the zone of consideration as per his placement in the seniority list of employees working in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II he could not have been considered for promotion. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any person in reserved category and junior to him was considered for promotion for the post of Personal Assistant. In absence whereof his right of consideration cannot be said to be jeopardized.
This Court does not find any manifest error being committed by learned Tribunal in passing of order impugned, which may call for interference.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA4967CW96 02-02.do