IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3605/1996. Sachida Nand & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashwini Kumar Jaiman for the petitioners. Shri Hemant Mathur, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition was filed by the petitioners way back in the year 1996 aggrieved by the order dated 22/12/1993 (Ann.14) issued by the Irrigation Department. By that order appointment of the petitioners were treated as ad hoc on the post of Tracer. Petitioners were originally appointed in the Agriculture Department as Tracer wherefrom they declared surplus vide order dated 13/8/1984 (Ann.4) and they were posted in the Irrigation Department however the Irrigation Department vide order dated 16/11/1984 (Ann.6) returned them to the General Administration Department but the General Administration Department sent them back to the Irrigation Department. This is how they were absorbed in the Irrigation Department. It appears that one of the petitioner-Sachida Nand filed appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal being dissatisfied with the non-inclusion of his name in the seniority list issued by the respondents on 12/6/1989. Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25/11/1991 holding that his appointment in the Agriculture Department was not by a competent authority and that Joint Director as per rules was not a competent authority. Moreover, his appointment was not on regular basis. When however the respondents issued the fresh order on 22/12/1993 (Ann.14), this joint writ petition challenging the action of the respondents was filed. Now this time, their claim is founded on the fact that relevant documents were not in their possession but the Agriculture Department itself in response to each quarry made by the Irrigation Department has confirmed the fact that appointment of the petitioners was on regular basis. Learned counsel then in this connection referred to orders dated dated 24/2/1993 (Ann.10), 26/3/1992 (Ann.12) and 23/11/1990 (Ann.13) and all these documents were placed and acted upon by promoting Shri Sukhveer Singh on the post of Junior Draftsman but in the case of petitioner No.1, wholly discriminatory attitude was adopted by the Irrigation Department. Shri Sukhveer Singh was junior to the petitioners as is evident from the order dated 13/8/1984 (Ann.4) issued by the Irrigation Department in which, name of Shri Sukhveer Singh appears at Sr.No.10 whereas, names of petitioners appear at Sr.No.1, 2 & 4, respectively. Learned counsel also referred to the seniority list dated 11/6/1982 (Ann.3) issued by the Agriculture Department in which, their names are included. This seniority list was issued for permanent Tracers.
Shri Hemant Mathur, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the State opposed the writ petition and submitted that in case of judgment passed against petitioner No.1, it cannot be accepted that the petitioners were permanently appointed in the Agriculture Department and therefore they were by the impugned-order dated 22/12/1993 (Ann.14) were promoted again showing as appointed on ad hoc temporary basis. As regards Shri Sukhveer Singh, however, it is submitted that the Irrigation Department believed the reply given by the Agriculture Department and on that basis promoted him. It is contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because petitioners have not challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 25/11/1991.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that Tribunal rejected appeal of petitioner No.1 only and not of other two petitioners. Tribunal dismissed the appeal because he was unable to produce copy of the appointment orders showing that Joint Director was appointing authority and was competent to appoint and was also unable to produce any document showing that Director of the Agriculture Department had approved of his appointment. Now, petitioner has placed on record copy of the order dated 11/6/1982 by which, seniority list of permanently appointed Tracers were issued by the Agriculture Department besides there are communications Ann.10, Ann.11, Ann.12 and Ann.14 sent by the Irrigation Department to the Agriculture Department to show that the petitioners were appointed on permanent post. Although, learned counsel now appearing for the Agriculture Department was disputing these letters but no reply was filed by the Irrigation Department and in the face of specific orders wrote by Agriculture Department in response to the quarry made by the Irrigation Department, their correctness cannot be disputed especially when one of such letters has been acted upon by the Irrigation Department while promoting Shri Sukhveer Singh who admittedly was junior to the petitioners.
In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22/12/1993 (Ann.14) is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioners at par with Shri Sukhveer Singh to have been promoted on the post of Junior Draftsman or any other higher post to which in the meantime he might have been accorded promotion with all consequential benefits.
Compliance of this judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani