BASUDEV SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE COOPERATIVE BANK AND ANOTHER
LAWS(RAJ)-1992-11-70
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 05,1992

BASUDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote him on the post of Clerk/Cashier against the quota reserved for Class IV employees and for quashing of the order dated 6.6.89 relating to promotion of respondent No. 2 on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier.
(2.) The petitioner joined service of respondent No. 1 (Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank) as Class IV employee with effect from 26.5.81. He was confirmed on the post with effect from 20.5.82. He applied for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in pursuance of Circular dated 17.2.88. A written examination was held on 15.4.89. Thereafter the petitioner was called for interview by communication dated 5.5.89 (Annexure-5). On the basis of the examination and interview held by respondent No. 1 three persons were appointed by promotion as Clerk-cum-Cashier. Respondent No. 2 was also promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier by order dated 6.6.89 (Annexure-6).
(3.) Petitioner's case is that no seniority list of Class IV employees had been prepared by respondent No. 1. No criteria was laid down for making promotions and respondent No. 1 has acted in contravention of the Notification dated 16.7.81 (Annexure-1) issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of his power under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966. Although the test was required to be taken as a qualifying test, respondent No. 1 converted it into a competitive test. Moreover, respondent No. 2 was not having the requisite qualification inasmuch as he had not completed five years service. Despite his ineligibility, respondent No. 2 has been promoted vide order dated 6.6.89. If respondent No. 2 had not been promoted, the petitioner would have been promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier. The petitioner's case that on account of inclusion of name of respondent No. 2 in the zone of eligibility, unequals have been treated as equal and this has resulted in violation of equality clause contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.