- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS have preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 14.03.2011, whereby appeal of respondent No.1 Ashfaque Hussain, has been allowed and the Department has been directed to reconvene review D.P.C. for considering the case of respondent No.1 on merit against vacant post of the year 1997-98 and in case, he is found meritorious on merit, then to promote him against the vacant post of the year 1997-98, with all consequential benefits. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1 is a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. He had already been granted senior scale, however, he was denied selection scale against the vacant post of the year 1997-98 on merit basis and his junior persons were granted selection scale on merit basis against the vacant posts of 1997-98, therefore, he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Tribunal summoned the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and considering the same, it was found by the Tribunal that out of 7 years APRs', 5 years APRs' of respondent No.1 was either 'outstanding' or 'very good' and he was meritorious. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that reply of the State is only to the extent that respondent No.1 (appellant before the Tribunal), was not found to be meritorious. Since, as per record examined by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was found to be meritorious, therefore, appeal of respondent No.1 was allowed and a direction was issued by the Tribunal to the State/ Department to reconvene the review D.P.C. and to consider the case of respondent No.1, again on merit basis, for selection scale in R.A.S. Cadre, against vacant post of the year 1997-98. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since junior persons to respondent No.1 were found more meritorious, therefore, they were given selection scale. Learned counsel further submitted that junior persons to petitioner, who were granted selection scale, were not impleaded as party in the appeal before Tribunal, therefore, appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party; however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has not disputed that record of respondent No.1 for relevant last 7 years, was examined by the Tribunal and it was found that out of 7 years APRs', respondent No.1 had been awarded 'outstanding' or 'very good' remarks in 5 years, therefore, he was also meritorious. This fact could not be controverted by the learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that original record of D.P.C. was summoned by the Tribunal and it was found that respondent No.1 was meritorious. He also submitted that it is wrong to say that he had not impleaded necessary party in the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that junior most person, namely Priyavrat Pandya, who was granted selection scale against the year 1997-98, was impleaded as respondent No.(iii) in the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is not tenable. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order in the light of their submissions.
(3.) SO far as factual aspect of the matter is concerned, same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners also that out of 7 years relevant APRs', respondent No.1 had been awarded 'outstanding' or 'very good' remarks in 5 years, which was the requirement for granting selection scale in R.A.S. Cadre. Since respondent No.1 was also meritorious, therefore, there was no reason for ignoring the claim of respondent No.1 for grant of selection scale to him against the year 1997-98. So far as impleadment of necessary party is concerned, from the memo of appeal, it is clear that junior most person, who was granted selection scale on merit against the year 1997-98, was impleaded as respondent No.(iii) in the appeal before the Tribunal. It is relevant to mention that Priyavrat Pandey has not preferred any writ petition, as admitted by the learned counsel for the parties. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners that affected person was not impleaded as party in the appeal before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that there may be certain other considerations on record, which may deprive grant of selection scale on merit to respondent No.1, however, it is sufficient to mention that direction of the Tribunal is only to consider the case of respondent No.1(appellant before the Tribunal), for grant of selection scale in R.A.S. Cadre on merit. ;