- (1.) THROUGH this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Narpat Singh Rathod has sought the reliefs, which are briefly stated as under : - (1) Regulation 20 of the Raj. Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 is ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India being in excess of the delegation. (2) For quashing of the seniority list dated 20.05.1982 and 24.06.1982 in so far as they related to the petitioner and respondent no. 3 declaring that the petitioner was entitled to rank senior to respondent no.3. (3) For directing the Departmental Promotion Committee to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Manager as against the vacancies of the year 1981 on the basis of his service record; and (4) For ignoring the departmental enquiry against the petitioner."
(2.) THE petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Deputy Manager (Accounts) and was kept on probation for one year w.e.f. 19.4.1977. He was confirmed on 4.4.1980 w.e.f. 1.6.79. Sri K.K. Sharma, respondent no. 3 was also confirmed vide the same order w.e.f. 1.6.79. In the confirmation order, petitioner was at sl. no.2 whereas respondent no. 3 at sl.no. 3. Vide circular dated 5.12.1981 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the Rajasthan Financial Corporation issued directions regarding seniority of Dy. Managers, relevant portion for the purpose of this case is quoted below : - ".... While deciding the seniority, following principles have been followed: - (1) That as in the seniority of persons from s.no. 1 to 74 has already been determined finally as per office order No. PAS (90)/301/ 80-81, dated 8.05.1980, objections are invited only from persons mentioned from s.no. 8 to 22." Subsequently, the seniority of the petitioner was, however, changed and the same was communicated to him through letter dated 20th May 1982. Respondent no.3 was kept at sl. no. 6 whereas the petitioner at sl.no. 7. The petitioner made a representation against the said seniority list alleging that the change in the same was illegal, unauthorised and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 10th Dec. 1981 containing three charges. He submitted an explanation to the same asserting that the charges were far from truth and that he was not guilty of the same. While the matters of disciplinary proceedings and seniority were pending before the authorities, he learnt that as against the vacancies of 1981, he had not been promoted to the post of Manager by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC). On the Court's direction, learned counsel for the respondent no.l produced the service record of the petitioner. On perusal, I find from the report of the DPC that it considered 15 eligible persons in the year 1981 including the petitioner. After considering the Annual Confidential Reports, personal files, entire service record and other papers, the DPC did not select the petitioner. The DPC again met on 10th Nov. 1986 for filling up the vacancies of the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. This report of the DPC indicates that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion on the post of Manager and was not recommended. In the subsequent meeting of the DPC held on 17th Feb. 1987 for regular promotion to the post of Manager for the year 1986-87, the petitioner was again ignored. It was in the meeting of the DPC held for promotion to the post of Manager as against the vacancies for the year 1987-88 that the petitioner was found fit and was recommended.
(3.) IN the background of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner felt aggrieved and filed the present writ petition on 8.11.1982. As is clear from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner was not selected to the post of Manager as on 8.11.1982 when the writ petition was filed, and, therefore, he sought the relief no.3, aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the selection of the petitioner against the vacancies of 1987-88 was unjustified. As a matter of fact, he was entitled to his promotion as Manager against the vacancies of 1981. For this purpose, he made an oral request for giving a direction to the authorities concerned for promoting him w.e.f. 1981. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents relying on the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.l, justified the non- selection of the petitioner in the earlier years, i.e. 1981-82 to 1985-86. He drew my attention to the following averments made in the Reply filed by respondent no.l : - "... The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in Dec. 1981. Due to reasons beyond the control of the Corporation the pending enquiry against the petitioner has not been completed as yet and the same is likely to be completed in the near future. It is not obligatory on the replying respondent to have completed the enquiry before the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. It is wrong for the petitioner to state that he has been superceded merely because of the pending departmental enquiry." ;