- (1.) INSTANT petition came to be filed by the incumbent in 2000 with the grievance that revision of selection grade granted to him prior to his promotion as Junior Engineer vide order dt. 13.9.1999 (Ann-5) which stood withdrawn & re-fixed detrimental to his interest vide order dt. 24.3.2000 (Ann-6) was not in conformity with the Circular of State Government dt. 25.01.1992 as there is impediment that one could be considered eligible for grant of selection scale in lieu of his promotion in the ordinary course but such of the incumbent who are not eligible for promotion or holding isolated post still entitled for selection grade in terms of para-5 of circular (supra) and admittedly the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Engineer Research which is included in the Schedule appended to Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 ( "Rules,1962 ") and being aggrieved the petitioner assailed vires of Rules,1962 on the premise that in other services of the State Government like Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building & Roads Branch) Rules, 1954, Rajasthan Service of Engineering & Research Officers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 and Rajasthan Service of Engineers & Allied Services (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1958 persons with qualification of diploma/ITI in their respective branch on completion of 10 years service become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer but as regards the present Scheme of Rules,1962 there is no provision regarding promotion for such incumbent who are ITI holders and such action of the respondent according to the petitioner is discriminatory and in violation of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) BEFORE examining the submission made apart from assailing validity of the relevant Scheme of Rules appended to Rules 1962, it will be appropriate to quote relevant part thereof which reads ad infra: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9 2. Engineering/Research 50% by Promotion 50% by direct recruitment Degree in Agri. Engineering of University established by law in India or its equivalent qualification recognized by the Government Jr. Engineer/Sub-Engineer/Soil Conservation Asstt. Degree in Agri. Engineering of a University established by law in India and 5 Yrs. Experience on the post mentioned in Col.No.5 OR 3 years diploma in Civil Engineering of a recognized Institution and 10 years experience on the post mentioned in Col.5 1. Chairman of the Commission or a member nominated by him as Chairman 2. Secretary to the Govt. Forest Department. 3. Special Secretary Department of Personnel or his representative not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. 4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. 5. Non-Member Secretary to be nominated by the secretary Forest Department. 35 yrs. Counsel for petitioner submits that indisputably the State Government is the ultimate employer of the employees working in various departments including Forest Department and are regulated by the recruitment Rules but if the ITI holders seeking promotion to the post of Engineer in research which is equivalent to Asst. Engineer if not held eligible for promotion there appears no justification in not extending such benefits to the ITI holders who are members of the Rules,1962 and their action being in violation of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution such incumbent who are holders of ITI even in the forest service Rules 1962 be held to be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Engineering Research included in the Schedule to rules 1962.
(3.) APART from submission regarding assailing vires of rules in question, counsel further submits that after the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer in the pay scale 10 of 5000-8000 vide order dt. 13.9.1999 (Ann-5) selection grade granted to him prior thereto was withdrawn and refixed by later order dt. 24.03.2000 detrimental to his interest and that could not be acted upon without due compliance of basic requiement of principles of natural justice being the settled principle of administrative law that no-one should be condemned unheard and admittedly in the instant case no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the order came to be passed detriment to his interest impugned herein dt. 24.03.2000 and the same deserves to be quashed.;