- (1.) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4826/1991, Mahaveer Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Ware housing Corporation was decided by me on 19. 08. 1991 by giving a direction to the respondent, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation to arrange for holding of a DPC if it is due for consideration of the name of the petitioner and others who may be entitled to the post of Accountant.
(2.) PETITIONER Mahaveer Singh has filed the review petition contending that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in the year 19p0 itself as he was then eligible for the same. His contention was that three years experience was required for promotion for the post of Accountant, and as he acquired the eligibility he was to be considered and promoted. This review petition has been argued by Shri K. K. Sharma on behalf of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation. He pointed out from para 9 of the counter affidavit that initially the Rules required three years' experience, but it has been modified by holding a meeting of the Board on 24. 05. 1990, giving it retrospective effect. By the said resolution the Board took the view that five years experience would be needed for promotion. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, therefore submits that the petitioner was not entitled to the post of Accountant either on the date when he filed the writ petition, or on the date of the decision of the writ petition. Petitioner's counsel urged that as resolution was passed on 24. 05. 1990, it could not be given retrospective effect. Sec. 37 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1942 empowers the Board to make regulation and the Board has been defined as meaning Board of Directors in Sub-section (b) of Sec. 2 of the said Act. The meeting of the Board took place on 24. 05. 1990. But the questions whether the Board can give the Rule retrospective effect. It is settled that power to make rule includes the power to give it retrospective effect. Such a rule if made cannot be struck down unless it has deprived its employees of the benefit of the same in an arbitrary manner. In the instant, case, three years' experience as Junior Accountant was felt by the Board to be inadequate for promotion to the post of Accountant as it was thought that this post was an important one for carrying on the business of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation. The object of requiring five years' experience was not arbitrary and, therefore,this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. The Board has laid down the rule of five years experience for being promoted to the post of Accountant. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation these facts had been stated, but they were not brought to the notice of the Court, which the counsel did not think it necessary to do so. On that account, the writ petition was disposed of. Consequently, the review petition has no force and it is dismissed. So far as the other writ petitions are concerned, it may be noted that under the Rules, the Board is under an obligation to consider the cases of the employees who became eligible to be considered for promotion in accordance with Rule 11-A. The clause relied upon by the respondent's counsel was that only those persons were eligible who had completed the requisite period of service on the first day of the calendar year in which the promotions are considered. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent urged that it is wrong to say that all the eligible employees would be entitled to be considered. What was required to be seen is that the person who became eligible on the first day of the calender year would be eligible for promotion. This submission of the learned counsel appears to be correct. It is wrong to argue on behalf of the respondent Corporation that as and when they consider to call the DPC for consideration of promotion, only then such persons would be entitled to the same. It is not the will and caprice of the corporation that it depends and whenever it desired, they may convene the meeting of the DPC and consider all promotions. Under the Service Rules, an employee is entitled to be considered for promotion in the year when he becomes entitled to the same. Long postponement of consideration for promotion frustrates the object for which the promotion is given. It cannot be a right of the employee to be promoted, but denial of the promotion would be capricious, arbitrary and illegal. As such, the persons who become entitled to be considered for promotion have to be considered in accordance with Rule 11a. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petitions are disposed of with the observations that it is expected that the Corporation will hold DPC without undue delay to consider the cases of those persons who have become eligible for the same in accordance with the Rules mentioned above. .;