JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer from the date on which his juniors were promoted with ail consequential benefits. The facts, in short, are that a final seniority list of Junior Engineers was published on 23.11.1986 showing the seniority as on 31.03.1984. The petitioner's name was shown at S. No. 125 and one Mr. Suresh Chouhan was shown at. S. No. 126. The respondents issued promotion order on 17.01.1991. The name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer as a Criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, he was reinstated vide order dt. 02.09.1993. As per the said order, the period during which the petitioner remained suspended was to be treated as on duty. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dt. 31.12.1993. It is contended that as and when he joined his duty, the petitioner came to know that other persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year, 1991 but his name was not considered in the said year. As such, his seniority was disturbed and the persons junior to him had been placed senior to the petitioner. He immediately made a representation in the year 1993 itself, in which he prayed that his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer be treated from the year 1991 when the junior persons were promoted. It is further contended that the petitioner personally represented to the respondent but there was no response. He submitted various representations but no one paid any heed to the said representations and ultimately, on 8.08.2007, the respondents issued seniority list of the Assistant Engineers, in which name of the petitioner was placed at S. No. 49 and a person junior to him Mr. Suresh Chouhan was placed at S. No. 27. After the publication of the Seniority list, the petitioner submitted the representation to the respondents in which he once again prayed that his name be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers with effect from 1991. Reply has been filed by the State as well as by the Private Respondent No. 4
(2.)While disputing the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondents-State and Private Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition filed in the year 2005 suffers from delay and laches. On merit, it was contended that under the Engineers Service Regulations, 1969, there is a provision under Schedule I of the Regulations of 1969 that the post of Assistant Engineer can be filled up 25% by way of direct recruitment and 75% by way of promotion from Junior Engineer. The said clause underwent an amendment from 15.07.1990 to the effect that Note 3 was inserted after the existing Note 2 under the heading "Junior posts" of Schedule 1 attached with the Regulations. The same reads as under:-
Note.-Provided that if in a particular year after filling up the posts in the manner prescribed under proviso (iii) of Regulation 16, if it is not possible to fill up the posts by direct recruitment to the extent of 25%, the remaining number of posts under direct recruitment quota may be filled in from amongst the existing J.En-I (Electrical/Mechanical) on the basis of merit. Such Junior Engineers Gr.I appointed against the post of Asstt. Engineer will be treated at par with the candidates appointed by direct recruitment for all purposes and their appointment will not be treated as promotion. The procedure & other conditions for filling up of these posts will be same as prevailing for a other category of posts being filled up by merit/selection under these Regulations.
(3.)It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to this, the appointments were made by way of direct recruitment on merit. Accordingly, an order was passed on 17.0.1.1991 after assessing merit of all the persons who were in the zone of consideration at that point of time. The promotions were made on merit basis against the direct recruitment quota from the employees of the RSEB. Subsequently, further promotions were made on 2.04.1991. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim promotion from the date Respondent No. 4 was appointed by promotion on direct recruitment quota through selection as per amended Rules.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.