GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 30. 11. 92 with a prayer that the order dated July 14, 1992 (annex. 2) may be quashed and set aside to the extent it excludes the petitioner from promotion on the post of Deputy Jailor and it was further prayed that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Jailor be considered avoiding punishment of censure imposed upon him by order dtd. 5. 4. 91.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) The petitioner entered the services of respondents being appointed as Warden with effect from 25. 10. 1960. At the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was posted at Central Jail, Udaipur. ii) The petitioner was promoted as Head Warden with effect from 2. 2. 1970. Though the petitioner was holding the post of Head Warden, he was discharging the duties of clerk at Central Jail, Udaipur. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted vide order dated. 6. 7. 1976 passed by the respondent No. 2 as Assistant Jailor at the sub-jail, Bheem. The promotion of the petitioner was on temporary basis. iii) Vide order dated 29. 8. 1984, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant jailor on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee against the vacancies of 1983-84 and 1984-85. The petitioner was confirmed on the aforesaid post on completion of 1 years' service on probation with effect from 29. 08. 1985. iv) The respondent No. 2 issued a final seniority list (Annex. 1) pertaining to the Assistant Jailor as on 18. 4. 92, vide order dtd. 16. 5. 92. In the aforesaid seniority list, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 23. v) The respondent No. 2 passed an order dtd. 14. 7. 92 (Annex. 2) by which the petitioner was not promoted to the post of dy. Jailor, but on the contrary, 5 persons from general quota who were junior to the petitioner were promoted and this order has been challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. vi) The petitioner submitted various representations about his supersession and later on the was told that since he was given punishment of censure vide order dtd. 5. 4. 91 in an enquiry held under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958), therefore, he was not given promotion. vii) A memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner is that punishment of censure is very minor punishment and on this ground alone, his seniority cannot be over-looked and thus impugned order dated. 14. 7. 72 (Annex. 2) to the extent it excludes the petitioner from promotion on the post of Deputy Jailor be quashed and he should be given promotion and the punishment of censure imposed on him vide order dtd. 5. 4. 91 should be over-looked. Reply to the writ petitions was filed by the respondents and their case is that since he was punished in an enquiry held under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, therefore, his promotion was rightly withheld. The word "promotion" covers not only advancement to a higher grade but also to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. Appointment to selection scale confers a higher status or rank and, therefore, it is promotion. An employee has no right to promotion but he has only a right to be considered for promotion. It may be sated here that the employee found guilty in an enquiry under Rule 17 or 16 f the Rules of 1958 cannot be placed at par with other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated indifferently. So far as question of suitability is concerned, the decision entirely rests upon the concerned authorities. In other words the concerned authorities are the sole Judge as to who is the most suitable candidates for giving promotion. No doubt censure is a minor penalty, but censure is a penalty and thus there can be no two opinion on this point.
(3.) CENSURE in my opinion is a penalty imposed after holding departmental enquiry for all purposes. CENSURE is a sort of formal ad is minimum minor penalty under the Rules of 1958 to be imposed for an act of commission or omission which is blameworthy. In the present case, there is no dispute on the point that in a departmental enquiry held under rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner punishment of censure vide order dtd. 5. 4. 91 and the petitioner was superseded vide order dtd. 14. 7. 92 on the basis of punishment of censure imposed on him. There is also no dispute in this case that the petitioner at the time of promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, But he was not found suitable for promotion because of imposition of penalty of censure in a Departmental Enquiry held against him under rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. It may be stated that the promotion is not right of a Government servant, but consideration of promotion is right. Since the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion committee and he was not found suitable for promotion because of imposition of punishment of censure, in these circumstances, if he was not promoted, it cannot be said that the order dated 14. 7. 92 (Annex. 2) refusing him promotion is violative of any of the articles of the Constitution of India. In this regard, following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be referred to: Union of India vs. K. V. Jankiraman (1) ;