BHAGIRATHDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are based on identical grounds and raise common questions of Saw, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment. The matter relates to the promotion of the petitioners.

(2.) AS per aver nents disclosed in the petition, the petitioners hold the Bachelor's Degree in Mechenical Engineering. Petitioner Bhagirathdan was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the State Woollen Mills, Bikaner on Julv 18, 1972 and subsequently when declared surplus, he was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer on December 12, 1975 in the Department of Mines and Geology. The other petitioner Himmatsingh was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer on September 25, 1973 in the department of Mines and Geology. Both the petitioners are holding these posts with clean and untainted record of service at their credit. The next post of promotion in the cadre is that of Deputy Drilling Engineer. The appointment to these posts are made cent per cent by promotion from amongst Assistant Mechancial Engineers and Assistant Drilling Engineers. Two posts of Deputy Drilling Engineers fell vacant on September 30, 1977. Under the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960 (briefly referred to as 'the Rules' hereafter), the Appointing Authority viz. the State Government is to determine the vacancies and make promotions as laid down in Part IV of the Rules. Both the petitioners are qualified to be promoted to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineers but the State Government did not make the promotion and charge of the vacant posts of Deputy Drilling Engineers was got delivered to respondents Sagatsingh and Mahendrasingh Chouhan, who are much junior to the petitioners and are even rot qualified to work as Deputy Drilling Engineers. It was done so a device to withhold the promotion to the petitioners. It was averred that it was incumbent on the appointing authority to determine each year the number of vacancies anticipated during the following twelve months and thereafter to take steps for promotion. Rule 9 of the Rules is very specific in this regard. Rule 9 of the Rules is parallel and analogous to rule 9 of the Rajasthan Medical and health Service Rules, 1963 and rule 9 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954. Rule 9 of these Rules has been held mandatory by this Court in two cases. The State Government thereafter amended Rule 24 A of the Rules and inserted sub -rule (11 A) therein, giving effect to the two decisions of this Court. Despite that, the State Government did not follow these mandatory provisions of the rules and the matter of promotion was not taken into consideration. The petitioners approached the State Government to redress their grievances but the attempt proved abortive. The reliefs claimed are; (1) the State Government be directed to consider the case of petitioners for promotion to the posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer as and when the vacancies arose in the relevant year and (2) in case, both the petitioners are thereafter found suitable, they be promoted to the posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer with effect from the date, the vacancies occurred with all consequential benefits.

(3.) IT would be proper to briefly notice the relevant rules. Rule 9 of the Rules as it now stands after 6 -10 -1979 reads as under: