- (1.) THE petitioner herein came with the case that he was appointed as LDC on the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 20. 7. 1978. He was posted in the Accounts Section and also discharging his duties as an Accountant. By an order dated 26. 2. 1991, the petitioner was promoted as UDC wherein his name appears at serial No. 6. After his promotion as UDC, he appeared in the written examination held by Rajasthan High Court for the post of Junior Accountant and was declared successful in the said examination vide order dated 10. 2. 1992. THE petitioner, thus became qualified Junior Accountant and vide order dated 1. 10. 92, he was promoted as Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900. On 15. 10. 92, the High Court issued on order notifying the list of persons, confirmed on the post of Junior Accountant w. e. f. 2. 10. 92 and the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 2 in the said list. Thus, the petitioner is a confirmed Junior Accountant w. e. f. 2. 10. 92 in terms of the order dated 15. 10. 92. THE petitioner claims that being a qualified Accountant, he was eligible to be considered for further promotion to the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent or Superintendent cum Chief Accountant. He has been agitating his cause for promotion to the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent since 1994. THE petitioner has stated that the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent or Superintendent cum Chief Accountant, as per rules, should go to a person, who is a qualified Accountant or who has been working as a Accountant or Civil Accountant in the Accounts Section of Rajasthan High Court. THE petitioner as well as his fellow Accountant cum Superintendent is filled up from amongst the persons, who were neither qualified Accountant nor are the persons working in the Accounts Section. On the contrary, the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent is being filled up by the persons having experience either as Bench Reader, Translator or the persons who are being promoted as a Superintendent and the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent is not being filled up from amongst the persons who have worked as qualified Accountant. Whenever the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant became available, the process that was followed by the respondents was to promote as person as Superintendent and then post him as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant. This post, which is made to the filled up by the persons having special qualifications and knowledge in the specialized accounts is being filled by the persons who have no specilization in accounts. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the last person who was promoted as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant i. e. Shri R. R. Kumbhat was a Civil Accountant and after the appointment of shri R. R. Kumbhat (Civil Accountant) as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant vide order dated 2. 1. 1980 (Annexure-5 with the petition) when the said post became available on account of Mr. Kumbhat's further promotion as Assistant Registrar on 31. 8. 1984, one Shri Udai Karan who was a Translator working in the civil section was promoted as Chief Accountant cum Superintendent and thus after 31. 8. 1984 the post of Superintendent-cum-Chief Accountant has never been filled up by promotion from amongst the qualified accountants and throughout since 1984 the said post has been treated as if it is a post of plaint and simple Superintendent without any prefix or suffix and the same has been utilised for the purpose of granting promotion to the non-qualified candidates as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant and the practice has been going on. In other words, the right of consideration of the eligible candidates who are qualified accountants has been denied throughout for the said post and the same has been made use of for the persons promoted as Superintendent. It has also been submitted that one Shri Ratan Chand Arora who was again posted on the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant was promoted as Assistant Registrar on 23. 5. 1996 and thus the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant became available again. Yet the said post was not filled up till 28. 2. 1998 and by order dated 28. 2. 1998 one Shri B. L. Arora who was working as Senior Court Master was promoted as Superintendent and by the same order and the was given posting as Chief Accountant cum Superintendent. THE petitioner had already submitted a representation on 12. 8. 97 raising grievance in this regard and on 31. 10. 98, the petitioner filed the present petition with the prayers as under:- (i) THE practice of posting the persons who are not qualified Accountants as Chief Accountant cum Supdt. may kindly be deprecated and respondents may be directed to accept the claim of the petition in consonance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1953 and also in consonance with the statement dated 6. 11. 1970 showing strength of various cadres which reveals that the feeder cadre for the post of Chief Accountant cum Supdt. is qualified Accountant; (ii) THE respondents be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Chief Accountant cum Suptd. which became due to him since 23. 5. 1996 with all consequential benefits. (iii) THE orders dated 28. 2. 98 and 13. 7. 98 by which the persons viz. Shri Babulal Arora and Shri Gordhan Mohnot were posted as Chief Accountant cum Supdt. may kindly be quashed and set aside and be declared Null 7 Void and further respondents may kindly be directed to restrain Shri Gordhan Mohnot from discharging his duties as Chief Accountant Cum Superintendent and further it may be directed that the post of Chief Accountant cum Superintendent be filed from amongst the qualified Accountants only in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1953 and not from the persons who are either Bench Readers and or Court Masters of other staff of Rajasthan High Court.
(2.) HE had also submitted a representation dated 6. 3. 1998 against the order dated 28. 2. 1998. Yet an order was passed on 2. 7. 98 promoting the respondent No. 3 Senior Court Master as Superintendent and by another order dated 30. 7. 98, he was posted as Chief Accountant cum Superintendent vice Shri B. L Arora who had been promoted as Superintendent and posted as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant on 28. 2. 98. On 5. 11. 98, the notice was issued by this Court in the writ petition and in response to the notice, a reply to the notice was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 on 14. 5. 99. Alongwith this reply, certain orders dated 3. 8. 90, 24. 4. 91, 7. 3. 92 and 31. 8. 84 have been enclosed, which also show that the posting was accorded to the Superintendent as Superintendent Cum Chief Accountant or the promotion was accorded to the Translator of Senior Bench to that of Chief Accountant Cum Superintendent. The reliance has been placed in the order dated 15. 10. 90 issued by the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice providing for the appointments by promotion to the post of Superintendent (other then paper book section) and further that the appointment/promotions to these posts shall be made by selections from amongst the senior Bench Reader and Office Assistants in the ratio of 3:1 by rotation in the following order: 1. Senior Bench Reader, 2. Senior Bench Reader, 3. Senior Bench Reader, 4. Office Assistant and so on. The writ petition was admitted after hearing both the sides on 19. 9. 2001 i. e. respondents No. 1 and 2 and no appearance was entered on behalf of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 then filed a separate reply dated 9. 10. 2001 seeking to traverse the claim of the petitioner No. 3 then filed a separate reply dated 9. 10. 2001 seeking to traverse the claim of the petitioner and nor during the course of hearing of the petition, the respondent No. 3 has filed an additional affidavit dated 22. 5. 2002 on 23. 5. 2002 which has been taken on record. The Rajasthan High Court (Condition of Service Staff) Rules, 1953, Schedule-I i. e. the strength of staff as on 1. 6. 1991 under Rule 2 show at item No. 15, the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of 2000-60-2300-75-3200 and total number of the posts of Superintendent is 13. At item No. 17, the post of chief Account cum Superintendent is there and it is only one post in the cadre strength in the same pay scale i. e. 2000-60-2300-75-3200. At item No. 18 the post of Assistant Account Officer is there and this schedule shows that there are 3 posts in all in the pay scale of 2000-60-2300-75-3200. Under the heading of non gazetted posts under this Schedule at item No. 11 there is a post of Junior Account and there are 11 posts of Junior Accountants in they pay scale of 1400-40-1800-50-2300-60-2360. It is very clear that the post of Junior Account is there as a non gazetted post in the Schedule and in this very Schedule the post of Superintendent as also that of Chief Accounts cum Superintendent and Assistant Accounts Officer are there under the heading of Gazetted post.
(3.) RULE 9 of the these rules of 1953 provides for the promotion to post carrying special responsibilities or require special qualifications and this RULE 9 reads as under:- " 9. Promotion to posts carrying special responsibility or requiring special qualifications: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these RULEs, promotions of the following posts carrying special responsibility or requiring special qualifications shall be made by selections:- 1. Dy. Registrar (Administration) 2. Registrar Cum Principal Secretary to the Chief Justice. 3. Assistant Registrar. 4. Senior Librarian. 5. Court Officer. 6. Superintendent-cum-Chief-Account. In case of non-availability of a suitable person for promotion to the post of Registrar cum Principal Secretary to Chief Justice & (or Court Officer), recruitment may be made in such other manner as may be specified by the Chief Justice. Thus, Rule 9 contains only those posts which are carrying special responsibility and require special qualifications and Superintendent Cum Chief Accountant is the post which has been included in Rule 9 as the post on which promotion is required to be accorded as a post carrying special responsibility and requiring special qualifications. Under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9, it has been provided in case of non-availability of suitable person for promotion to the post of Registrar-cum-Principal Secretary to Chief Justice (Court Officer), the recruitment has to be made in such other manner, as may be specified by the Chief Justice. The order dated 15. 10. 92 on which strong reliance has been placed by the respondents is an order covering the case of appointments of Superintendents (other ten paper book section ). On the basis of this order, it was sought to be justified before us that the Senior Bench Readers and Office Assistance are to be promoted as Superintendent. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Superintendent cum Chief Account, the post of Junior Accountant is not post in the Channel of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant and that in number of case, the candidates who are promoted as Superintendent were given posting as Superintendent cum Chief Accountant and the repeated reference was made to such orders filed on the record. ;