KOKJE, J. - (1.) THESE petitions relate to the promotions to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) in the Department of Medical and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan for the year 1989-90. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for appointment to the post of Associate Professor (Medicine) was held on 27. 05. 1989. At this meeting promotions for the years 1983-84 to 1989-90 were considered. For the year 1988-89 four vacancies were found to be existing, out of which 2 were earmarked for seniority cum merit quota and the other two for merit quota. Out of the 12 candidates in the zone of consideration for the year 1988-89. Dr. A. S. Sulemani and Dr. R. K. Goyal were selected against seniority cut merit quota and Dr. B. S. Gupta and Dr. Ashok Pangaria were selected against merit quota. At the same meeting promotions against 11 vacancies for the year 1989-90 were considered. Six out of these vacancies were to be filled in on the basis of seniority cum merit and the remaining 5 on the basis of merit. 35 candidates were found to be eligible and in the zone of consideration including Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar, Dr. K. C. Jain, Dr. V. D. Maheshwari, Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal who are amongst those whose cases are to be considered in these petitions. Dr. Abdul Hakim, Dr. J. S. Ujjwal, Dr. D. S. Mathur, Dr. R. P. Kothari, Dr. S. S. Haldia, Dr. Ram Pal (SC) were selected in seniority cum merit quota. Dr. Ramesh Roop Rai and Dr. S. K. Arora were selected in merit quota and Dr. D. K. Kochar, Dr. R. C. Gupta and Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar were selected by seniority cum merit against vacancies in merit quota, sufficient number of merit candidates not being found suitable for promotion in that quota. On the basis of selection, the promotion and posting orders were issued.
(2.) IT was later found out that the vacancies calculated for the purpose of promotions considered by the D. P. C. in meeting dated 27. 05. 89 were not correctly calculated and vancancy created by death of Dr. R. N. Mathur in the year 1987-88 and vacancy created in the year 1988-89 by promotion of Dr. N. M. Mathur were not reckoned. When this was detected a Review D. P. C. meeting was ordered which was held on 18. 10. 93. As a result of this Review D. P. C. Dr. D. K. Kochar and Dr. R. C. Gupta who were earlier promoted on the basis of seniority cum merit against vacancies in merit quota got promoted directly in seniority cum merit quota and Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal were also selected in merit quota in addition to Dr. Ramesh Roop Rai and Dr. S. K. Arora even though they had been considered for merit promotion in the D. P. C. meeting held on 27. 5. 89 and were not found to be fit for selection in the merit quota then. The position of Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar remained unchanged as he was found to be suitable for being promoted in the seniority cum merit quota against the unfilled post of merit quota which was his position earlier also. Promotion and posting orders were issued in compliance with the decisions of the D. P. C. meeting dated 18. 10. 93 also. After the review D. P. C. was held it is said that Dr. V. D. Maheshwari who was the 5th candidate in the reserved lists prepared by the D. P. C. in meetings dated 27. 5. 89 and 18. 10. 93 filed a representation contending that his record was not rightly considered. Again a meeting of the D. P. C. to review the result of the D. P. C. meeting dated 18. 10. 93 was ordered and this review D. P. C. meeting was held on 13. 1. 95. As a result of the review, the position of the seniority cum merit quota remained unchanged but Dr. V. D. Maheshwari was also found to be suitable for promotion in the merit quota in addition to the four candidates found suitable at the meeting dated 18. 10. 93 with the result that the promotion of Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar in the seniority cum merit quota against the post of merit quota was set aside and he was pushed to the first place in the reserved list. Again promotion and posting orders were issued. The following Chart will demonstrate the above factual position with clarity. CHART:- SELECTION FOR The YEAR 1989-90 11 VACANCIES:-6 BY SENIORITY CUM MERIT AND 5 BY MERIt D. P. C. DATED 27. 5. 89 D. P. C. DATED 18. 10. 93 D. P. C. DATED 13. 1. 95 SENIO-RITY-CUM-MERIt 1. Dr. Abdul Hakim 1. Dr. D. S. Mathur 1. Dr. D. S. Mathur 2. Dr. J. S. Ujjawal 2. Dr. R. P. Kothari 2. Dr. R. P. Kothari 3. Dr. D. S. Mathur 3. Dr. S. S. Haldia 3. Dr. S. S. Haldia 4. Dr. R. P. Kothari 4. Dr. D. K. Kochar 4. Dr. D. K. Kochar 5. Dr. S. S. Haldia 5. Dr. R. C. Gupta 5. Dr. R. C. Gupta 6. Dr. Ram Pal (SC) 6. Dr. Ram Pal (SC) 6. Dr. Ram Pal (SC) MERIt 1. Dr. Ramesh Rooprai 1. Dr. Ramesh Rooprari 1. Ramesh Rooprai 2. Dr. S. K. Arora 2. Dr. S. K. Arora 2. Dr. S. K. Arora 3. Dr. Raja Babu Panwar 3. Dr. V. D. Maheshwari 4. Dr. P. D. Khandelwal 4. Dr. Raja Babu Panwar 5. Dr. P. D. Khandelwal SENIO-RITY-CUM-MERIt 1. Dr. D. K. Kochar 1. Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar, 2. Dr. R. C. Gupta 3. Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar RESERVED LISt 1. Dr. K. C. Jain 1. Dr. K. C. Jain 1. Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar 2. Dr. O. P. Garg 2. Dr. O. P. Garg 2. Dr. K. C. Jain 3. Dr. Suresh Medatwal 3. Dr. Suresh Medatwal 3. Dr. O. P. Garg 4. Dr. Mohd. Sabir 4. Dr. Mohd. Sabir 4. Dr. Suresh Medatwal 5. Dr. V. D. Maheshwari 5. Dr. V. D. Maheshwari 5. Dr. Mohd. Sabir Dr. K. C. Jain who is senior to Dr. Ramesh Roop Rai, Dr. S. K. Arora, Dr. V. D. Maheshwari, Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal challenging the promotions granted to his juniors, alleging that they did not fulfil the requirement for merit promotion as they did not possess Very Good or Outstanding remarks in the A. P. A. Rs. for the preceding seven years. Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar who was selected on the basis of Seniority cum merit against merit quota in the D. P. C. meetings dated 27. 5. 89 and 18. 10. 93 and who was pushed to the reserved list because of promotion of Dr. V. D. Maheshwari in the merit quota, filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 450/95 in this Court straightaway. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal quashing the merit promotion of Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal. Dr. Raja Babu Panwar did not challenge that decision and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal has challenged it by filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 225/96. The State of Rajasthan also challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing a petition at Jaipur which was transferred to Jodhpur and registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4934/99. All these cases were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The following questions arise for determination in these cases:- (1) Whether the decision of the D. P. C. in its meeting dated 27. 5. 89 was validly subjected to a review? (2) Whether the meeting of the review D. P. C. held on 18. 10. 93 could select Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal in the merit quota when they were found to be not eligible for promotion under merit quota at the D. P. C. meeting dated 27. 5. 89 especially when for promotion in merit quota a candidate must have Very Good or Outstanding remarks in the A. P. A. Rs. for the preceding seven years? (3) Whether the decision of the Review D. P. C. meeting dated 18. 10. 93 was validly subjected to further review? (4) Whether the Review D. P. C. in its meeting dated 13. 1. 95 could have selected Dr. V. D. Maheshwari in the merit quota when his case was earlier considered for promotion in the merit quota in the D. P. C. meetings dated 27. 5. 89 and 18. 10. 93 and he was not found suitable especially when the promotion on merit is given on the basis of Very Good or Outstanding remarks during the preceding seven years? (5) Whether the petition filed by Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar should not be entertained because he has not exhausted the remedy of appeal?
(3.) THE promotions in the Medical Service Collegiate Branch are governed by the Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 1962. Sub Rule (11-B) of Rule 24-A is relevant for the purpose and is being reproduced hereunder:- Sub Rule (11-B) of Rule 24-A:-THE Govt. or the Appointing Authority may order for the review of the proceedings of the D. P. C. held earlier on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or on account of a factual error substantially affecting the decision of the D. P. C. or for any other sufficient reasons e. g. change in seniority, wrong determination of vacancies, judgment/direction of any court or tribunal, or where adverse entries in the confidential reports of an individual are expunged or toned down or a punishment inflicted on him is set aside or reduced. THE concurrence of the Department of Personnel and the Commission (where Commission is associated) shall always be obtained before holding the meeting of the review D. P. C. " So far as the meeting dated 18. 10. 93 is concerned obviously the necessity arose because of wrong calculation of vacancies for the year 1988-89 & 89-90 which resulted in omission of two posts from consideration by the D. P. C. meeting dated 27. 5. 89. As wrong determination of vacancies is a specific reason given by way of illustration in Sub Rule (11-B) of Rule 24-A for ordering review, it cannot be doubted that review D. P. C. meeting could be ordered for that reason. The decision to call a review D. P. C. meeting to review the decision of D. P. C. meeting dated 27. 5. 89 was therefore perfectly in order being in accordance with rules. First question therefore has to be answered in the affirmative. In its meeting dated 18. 10. 93 the D. P. C. did not consider two senior most candidates Dr. Abdul Hakim and Dr. J. S. Ujjawal in seniority cum merit quota as they had been considered and selected against the vacancies of the earlier years. The next two candidates in the seniority cum merit quota Dr. D. K. Kochar and Dr. R. C. Gupta who were declared selected in the seniority-cum-merit quota against the vacancies of merit quota were declared selected under the seniority cum merit quota in places vacated by Dr. Abdul Hakim and Dr. J. S. Ujjawal. However in the merit quota in additional to the two candidates earlier selected viz. Dr. Ramesh Roop Rai and Dr. S. K. Arora, Dr. Raja Babu Panwar and Dr. P. D. Khandelwal were also declared to be selected and the position of Dr. L. K. Bhatnagar who was earlier selected in the seniority cum merit quota against the vacancy of merit quota remained unaltered. The question raised is when according to the Rule for selection for promotion on the basis of merit, candidates Outstanding or consistently Very Good in their A. P. A. Rs. for the preceding 7 years were to be selected and if these two candidates has such record why they could not get promoted against merit quota in the D. P. C. meeting dated 27. 5. 89? A serious doubt was therefore raised as to the selection of these two additional candidates in the merit quota. ;