MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 11. 1. 1991 (Annex. 14) may be quashed and the order dated 1. 12. 1984 whereby the petitioner was temporarily promoted as U. D. C-cum-Steno may be maintained.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 24. 12. 79 on the post of L. D. C. THE petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Examination with English Stenography and Typing as one of the subjects. THE petitioner was made permanent on the post of L. D,c. by the order dated 4. 1. 1983. THEre was one post of U. D. C-cum-Steno available in the office of respondent No. 2. THErefore, the petitioner applied for that and he was appointed as U. D. C-cum-Steno by the order dated 1. 12. 1984 on temporary basis. He was given the salary of the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno and a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month. THEreafter on account of the vacancy caused by voluntary retirement of one person a vacancy of U. D. C.-cum-Steno became available and the petitioner was allowed to continue against this post by the order dated 8. 4. 1986. THEreafter, the petitioner's services were only extended upto 11. 1. 1991 and he was not allowed to continue on this post. It is alleged that some complaints were filed against the petitioner but no such material, in these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. A return has been filed by the respondent and the respondents in the reply has pointed out that it is true that one post of U. D. C-cum-Steno became available, therefore, the petitioner was appointed as U. D. C-cum-Steno. But it was clearly mentioned in the order that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno is purely temporary. It is further submitted that while promoting the petitioner the seniority of L. D. Cs. was not taken into consideration. It is also submitted that the post of U. D. C is a promotional post and required to be filled in from substantive L. D. Cs. It is also pointed out that there is no cadre of U. D. C-cum-Steno. But the U. D. Cs. who were working as Steno-Typist are paid a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month only. It is submitted that basically both these posts are one and the same. It is submitted that the representation was filed by one Shri Khub Shanker Paliwal, who was L. D. C. in the office of the respondent No 2, contending that he is senior to the petitioner and, therefore, he should have been promoted on the post of U. D. C then the petitioner. It is submitted that since the petitioner is junior to him, therefore, he should be first considered for promotion to the post of U. D. C. than the petitioner. It is also submitted that a number of persons have filed representations against the promotion of the petitioner as the petitioner was junior to them. The petitioner has also submitted that his name has been shown at item No. 4 in the temporary U. D. Cs. The petitioner has also contended in the rejoinder that person junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri Narain Lal Lakhara who has been promoted on 1. 5. 1987, is being retained on the post whereas the petitioner is sought to be reverted. The petitioner has also submitted a document Annex. 15 wherein the post of U. D. C.-cum-Steno has been shown apart from the post of U. D. C. A reply to the rejoinder has also been filed by the respondents and it was again reiterated that in fact, the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno and the U. D. C. are one and same post and the U. D. C. who knows short-hand and typing are paid a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The service conditions of the L. D. Cs. and U. D. Cs. are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules') and there is no separate cadre of U. D. C.-cum-Steno in the Rules. Therefore, it is clear that whenever an incumbent works of steno typist he only gets a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month. That shows that the petitioner who holds the post of U. D. C.-cum -Steno has necessarily to be an U. D. C. and if he knows stenography then he is only eligible to be appointed on the post of U. D. C.-cum-Steno. The petitioner essentially an L. D. C. and he can only be appointed as U. D. C-cum-Steno provided he is in his own right appointed on the post of U. D. C. If the persons senior to him are already there and they are eligible for being appointed on the post of U. D. C. then the petitioner cannot claim a prior appointment on the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno. Therefore, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim promotion on the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno when persons senior to him are already there as L. D. Cs.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the person who was appointed much after him, i. e. Shri Narain Lal Lakhara, has been retained and he has been reverted. I will not express any opinion about the continuance of Shri Narain Lal Lakhara as he is not party before me. However, fact remains that if the incumbent is not an U. D. C. then he cannot be appointed on the post of U. D. C-cum-Steno. In this view of the matter, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he cannot be retained as U. D. C-cum-Steno unless he is promoted in his own rights as U. D. C. ;