1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2116/2010
Maya Choudhary. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
Date : 5.3.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.RS Choudhary, for the petitioner.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was appointed in a project of
Lok Jumbish vide order dated 31.1.1997. According
to the petitioner, she has been regularly absorbed
in the service and in support of this, the
petitioner relied upon Annex.3 dated 13.12.2004
and Annex.4 dated 16.2.2005. However, in these two
documents, it is not mentioned that the petitioner
has been absorbed in regular cadre. The petitioner
then relied upon Annex.7 dated 9.2.2010 wherein it
is mentioned that the petitioner has been absorbed
vide order dated 14.10.2004. No such order dated
14.10.2004 is placed on record from which it can
be gathered that the petitioner has been absorbed
in regular cadre. The petitioner then submitted
that one advertisement has been issued on
28.1.2010 to fill up the post of CRCF. According
to the petitioner, since the petitioner is
entitled to be promoted to the said post,
therefore, the respondents cannot proceed to
advertise the said post.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to
show that the said post is a post which can be
filled up by promotion and not by direct
recruitment and admittedly, the petitioner is not
holding the post of CRCF.
The contention of the petitioner that he has
been regularly absorbed having opportunity to get
promotional post is not substantiated by any
document or by any relevant provision nor the
petitioner could demonstrate that the
advertisement Annex.8 is for filling up the said
post by promotion, rather say, the advertisement
says that the post has been advertised to be
filled up by direct recruitment.
So far as the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the respondents may be
directed to grant promotion as sought by Annex.7
dated 9.2.2010 is concerned, it is absolutely a
pre-mature writ petition in view of the fact that
the said recommendation is dated 9.2.2010 and this
is for the authority to decide what action is to
be taken on the basis of the recommendation made
by an officer subordinate to the officer to whom
this communication is addressed.
In view of the above, this writ petition,
having no merits, is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya