GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 1. 5. 1991 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C ignoring the orders dated 14. 3. 89 (Annex. 5) and 18. 12. 89 (Annex. 6) and they may be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C from 28/29. 12. 90 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The petitioner was appointed in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 3. 2. 69 as Grading Assistant. (ii) The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Department of Agricultural Marketing in the year 1976 and there the petitioner was posted as Secretary to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. (iii) A seniority list (Annex. 1) at page 24 of Agricultural Subordinate Service Personnel was issued on 5. 1. 88 which contained the names of 685 persons. Another list (Annex. 2) at page 36 was issued containing the names of 1070 persons. In the seniority list (Annex. 2), the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 451. (iv) The promotion to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Agricultural Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960 ). Rule 9 of the Rules of 1960 provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes and it provides that the reservation shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government. (v) Vide order dated 10. 5. 89 (Annex. 3) at page 61 promotions were made to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C. By this order 72 persons were promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C, but not a single person against the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes quota was promoted. (vi) Vide order dated 28/29. 12. 1990 (Annex. 4) 91 promotions were made to the post of District Agriculture Officer, Group C. (vii) A perusal of order dated 28/29. 12. 90 will reveal that two persons were promoted against the Scheduled Tribes quota and one person was promoted against the Scheduled Caste quota. When the petitioner was not promoted, he made enquiries and he came to know that he was not promoted on account of the fact that two minor penalties under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 were imposed on him vide orders dated 14. 3. 89 (Annex. 5) and 18. 12. 89 (Annex. 6 ). (viii) Against the order dated 18. 12. 89, the petitioner had submitted an appeal before the State Government and that appeal is still pending before the State Government. It has been submitted by the petitioner that since both the penalties were minor penalties, therefore withholding of promotion on the ground of minor penalties is contrary to law and thus, the petitioner deserves to be promoted. Further more, the petitioner has completed 15 years of service in February, 1984, but he has not been granted selection grade and the reason for denial of selection scale appears to be that minor penalties have been imposed on the petitioner. Hence non-promoting the petitioner as well as non-grant of selection grade is contrary to law and both have been challenged in this writ petition and according to the petitioner, since because of minor penalties, he has been punished twice, therefore, it is a case of double jeopardy and orders dated 14. 3. 89 and 18. 12. 89 are illegal and violative of Articles 20 of the Constitution of India and thus, ignoring them he may be promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent on 18. 11. 92. In reply to para 8 to the writ petition, the respondent submitted that the promotion order dt. 10. 5. 89 contained the names of 72 persons only and they promoted in various years from 1984-95 to 1986-87 and the petitioner's name was not in the zone of consideration and, therefore, he was not entitled to be promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group-C. Order dated 10. 5. 89 Annex. 3 was rightly issued. In reply to para 9 of the writ petition, the respondent submitted that promotion order was issued on 28/29. 12. 90 and since prior to that two minor penalties were imposed on the petitioner, therefore his case was considered, but he was not found fit for promotion and, therefore, to say that promotion was denied to him violating his right is not correct. It was further stated that through order dt. 14. 3. 89 (Annex. 5) recorded warning was given to the petitioner as punishment and through order dated 18. 12. 89 (Annex. 6) two annual grade increments were withheld and thus refusing promotion on the ground of these two minor penalties is just in law. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition and the same be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both and perused the record. Through order dated 14. 3. 89 (Annex. 5), punishment of recorded warning was imposed on the petitioner and through order dated 18. 12. 89 (Annex. 6) punishment of stoppage to two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since imposing of recorded warning is not punishment and, therefore, first promotion should have been given to him in accordance with law when 72 persons were promoted vide order dated 10. 5. 89 (Annex. 3 ). ;