Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 7.1.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director. Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) by which grant of selection grade on completion of 9 years of service to the petitioner vide order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner who was working as Ferroman was not holding the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Tracer, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Ferroman vide order dated 29.7.1986 in the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Rajasthan and his services were confirmed on the post of Ferroman with effect from 1.4.1990 through order dated 9.7.1990 (Annex. 1) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Jaipur (respondent No. 1). (ii) That the further case of the petitioner is that at the time of appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 29.7.1986 there were no rules in the respondent - Department, but in the year 1989 a Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) was annexed with Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960). (iii) That the further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner was allowed Selection Grade on completion of 9 years of service vide order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) in the pay scale of Rs. 950 -1680 and since then the petitioner was enjoying the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950 -1680 after being granted selection grade. (iv) That the further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1), the selection grade which was granted to the petitioner through order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) was withdrawn and the petitioner was fixed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 825 -1350 with effect from 29.7.1995. (v) That it is further submitted by the petitioner that a perusal of order dated 25.1.1992 passed by the Finance Department will show that nowhere in that order, it has been stated that at the time of granting selection grade, a person should possess the qualification for promotional post and the only condition is that he would complete 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Since the petitioner had completed 9 years of service on the date when the selection grade was granted to him, therefore, the selection grade was rightly granted to him. (vi) That the further case of the petitioner is that the Schedule (Annex. R/1) appended to the Rules of 1960 would show that post of Tracer is promotional post for the post of Ferroman and for getting promotion on the post of Tracer, the qualification is secondary certificate with drawing as one of the subjects of a recognized Board with 5 years experience on the post of Ferroman. (vii) That it is further submitted by the petitioner that as per notification dated 6.5.1995 (Annex. 4) issued by the Department of Personnel, a person having five years' experience on the post of Ferroman is entitled for promotion to the post of Tracer. (viii) The petitioner submits that he keeps requisite experience for promotion to the post of Tracer and since at the time of initial appointment, Schedule (R/1) appended to Rules of 1960 was not there, therefore, for all purposes, it would be deemed that petitioner was having requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Tracer from the post of Ferroman and from this point of view also, the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it is submitted by them that qualification and method of recruitment for the post in subordinate service in the respondent -Department were prescribed by order/Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) attached to the Rules of 1960. Further case of the respondents is that the selection grade was wrongly granted to the petitioner as it was not granted in the spirit of order dated 25.1.1992 (Annex. R/2) as the petitioner was not having requisite qualification for promotional post of Tracer as he did not possess certificate of Secondary examination with drawing as one of the subjects. The marksheet of the petitioner of Secondary Examination is marked as Annex. R/3 and hence withdrawal of selection grade was rightly done by the respondents and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;