- (1.) THE instant writ petition is a second inning of litigation at the behest of the petitioner craving under mentioned relief: "This Court may please direct the respondents to implement the judgment dated 23.4.1999 within a given time and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a given time and the amount arising therefrom may be paid to him alongwith interest @24% p.a."
(2.) THE facts apposite for the purpose of this writ petition are that petitioner is having to his credit qualification of graduation with certificate of LSGD. At the threshold of his service career, the petitioner was recruited as Assessor vide order dated 30th of August 1965. The post of Assessor is in the subordinate cadre and governed by the set of Rules known as Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate & Ministerial Staff Service) Rules 1963. The Assessor is further entitled for promotion in the State services to the post of Revenue Officer Gr.II and Executive Officer in Class III Municipalities in terms of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules 1963 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1963') as it stood before amendment under the Rules of 1963 vide Notification dated 23rd December 1976. The grievance of the petitioner is that he acquired eligibility for further promotion in the cadre of Revenue Officer Gr.II in the year 1970 but despite availability of vacancies his case for promotion was not considered. The petitioner has also taken shelter of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1963 which postulates yearwise determination of vacancies to be filled by each method i.e. direct recruitment as well as promotion. Ventilating his grievance against non -adherence of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1963, despite eligibility of the petitioner and his seniority position at Serial No.22 in the cadre of Assessor, the petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that the yearwise vacancies were not properly determined for the purpose of promotion and that has seriously prejudiced his cause. With a view to substantiate this positive assertion, the petitioner has averred that he was accorded promotion as a Revenue Officer Gr.II vide order dated 30th of January 1974 on purely temporary basis under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 and ultimately he was accorded substantive promotion on recommendation of DPC vide order dated 15th of February 1986 and he was put on probation for six months. Staking his claim for regularizing his promotion, which was in the cadre of Revenue Officer Gr.II from the year 1974, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that as a matter of fact the petitioner became eligible for promotion on the post of Revenue Officer Gr.I on 1st of January 1976. In the sequence of events, the petitioner has also averred that yet another order was issued on 4th of October 1991 whereby the petitioner was promoted as Revenue Officer Gr.II w.e.f. 1.1.1976 and in the said cadre he was confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.1977. Alleging discrimination by naming Darshan Lal Soni and Chandu Singh Verma, who were junior to the petitioner, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that they were accorded promotion in the cadre of Revenue Officer Gr.I while ignoring candidature of the petitioner. All these grievances and denial of right of consideration for promotion to the post was made as a basis by the petitioner and a writ petition was preferred by him before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6505 of 1991. The said writ petition came up before this Court on 23rd of April 1999 and this Court after bipartite hearing, vide its verdict of even date, decided the same with the following directions: "By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotions in accordance with order dated 15.2.1986 on which he was considered fit for promotion from the year 1973 and was accordingly promoted by that order. A subsequent order passed on 4.10.1991 promoting the petitioner all over again w.e.f. 1976 was obviously redundant. In view of this factual position interest of justice would be met if the petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion in accordance with the Rules as they exist from time to time on the basis of the order dated 15.2.1986 expeditiously."
(3.) IN the instant petition, the petitioner has urged that despite directions of this Court the requisite exercise has not been undertaken by the respondents in accordance with Rules. When non -compliance of the order was complained by the petitioner by way of launching contempt petition, the said effort proved abortive and on technical ground that contempt petition is barred by time, the same was rejected. The writ petition is contested by the respondents and in their reply the respondents have defended their action by submitting that the candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion but he was not found suitable. Although in the return, the respondents have denied the averments contained in the writ petition but in substance the reply is absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific so as to meet the challenge thrown by the petitioner.;