- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.01.2006 whereby the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge with the direction that the petitioner-respondent herein be promoted as Jamadar from the date respondent No.3 was promoted and that she would be entitled for all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the petitioner-respondent herein did not fulfill the eligibility qualifications for the post of Jamadar which are enumerated in the Work Charged Rules, 1964 and, therefore, the DPC has rightly ignored the case of the petitioner-respondent herein for being promoted on the post of Jamadar. Learned counsel further submitted that learned Single Judge committed an error in placing reliance on the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Condition) Rules 1963 for holding that the post of Jamadar under the Rules of 1963 was 100% by promotion and there is no additional qualification required under the said Rules of 1963 which was taken into account by the DPC for refusing the promotion to the petitioner while holding her to be ineligible. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the scheme of the Rules, both the Work Charged Employees Rules, 1964 as well as the Rules of 1963 on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Rules of 1964 alone are applicable also cannot help the case of the appellants. The Rajasthan Work Charged Code Edition:2009 at page 58 contains:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... framed in exercise of the powers contained in Rule 4(3) of the Work Charged Employees Rules, 1964. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the post enumerated at serial no.13 of 'Mate' has been equated with that of "Jamadar" under the promotion Rules framed under Rule 4(3) and, therefore, all the qualifications which are essential under sub paragraph 5 of item No.13 for making a person eligible on the post of Mate must be fulfilled by a candidate for promotion on the post of Jamadar. Item No.13 at page 71 of the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rules, Edition:2009 published by Kishore Book Depot reads as follows:- "13. (1) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... (Mate)" We find that there is no such mention of "Mate/Jamadar" as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant in the promotion Rules framed in exercise of powers under Rule 4(3) of the Work Charged Employees Rules, 1964. In the para 7 of item 13 we also find that there is no mention of the post of "Coolie" which was held by the respondent No.3 and so also by the petitioner which is source from which promotion is to be given. In para 7 of item 13 it is stated ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED].... As would be apparent from the rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants the post from which the promotion is to be made does not specify "coolie" as the lower post from which promotion is to be made nor in para 13 do we find the post of Jamadar as equivalent of "Mate". As such we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the promotion to the petitioner-respondent was denied on account of the fact that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications as mentioned in para 5 against post No.13 for the post of "Mate" under the Promotion Rules framed in exercise of the powers under Rule 4(3) of the Work Charged Rules, 1964. Learned counsel has not disputed the fact that the Rules of 1964 and the promotion Rules framed in exercise of powers under Rule 4(3) do not contain any such provision.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has taken into account the fact that the respondent No.3 admittedly was working on the post of "coolie" and so also the petitioner. The respondent No.3 being junior in the seniority was granted the promotion but the same was denied to the petitioner. In that view of the matter we find no reason. Accordingly, we find no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.;