Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Prem Lal Tater aggrieved by his supersession by respondent No. 2 Om Prakash Mehta, who, according to petitioner, was junior to him and yet was promoted on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer vide order dated 31.03.1998 ignoring the seniority of petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Inspector -cum -Auditor with the respondent Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board (for short, 'the Board') on 30.12.1978. In course of time, he was promoted on the post of Accountant vide order dated 28.01.1988. The respondent Board got issued provisional seniority list of Accountants on 03.05.1997 inviting objections, if any. Therein, name of petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2. The said provisional seniority list was finalized and final seniority list was issued on 12.12.1997 after considering all the objections, wherein name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2 whereas name of respondent No. 3 Om Prakash Mehta was at Serial No. 3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that criteria of promotion from the post of Accountant to that of Assistant Accounts Officer is only seniority and even as per the respondents it is merit -cum -seniority and, therefore, if the merit of two is equal then petitioner, being senior, ought to have been preferred for promotion to that post.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that in reply to the writ petition, the respondents though have stated that respondent No. 2 Shri Om Prakash Mehta was considered more meritorious than petitioner, but they have not disclosed any material whether there was any adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner or whether the grading in ACR of respondent No. 2 was better than the petitioner or whether any penalty was imposed on the petitioner during relevant period for consideration. They cannot be therefore allowed to contend that the respondent No. 2 was more meritorious. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was never conveyed any adverse remark in his ACRs. Petitioner bears a good and clean service record, therefore, he has stated on oath that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner. Neither any departmental enquiry is pending against him nor he has been subjected to any explanation. No penalty was ever imposed on the petitioner during the relevant period preceding the year of consideration. The entire service record of the petitioner is neat and clean. Such assertions have been made by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition, and the same have not been denied by the respondents in reply thereto. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;