VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) IN both the intra -court appeals, the subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.635 of 2010 (Laxman Prasad Meena & Ors. v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.), dismissing the writ petition of the appellants/petitioners, confirming the order dated 7th December, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal', for short).
(2.) SHORN off the unnecessary details, the essential material facts are: That an appeal challenging the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPC', for short) convened on 9th February, 2004 for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), was instituted before the learned Tribunal on the ground that without finalization of the provisional seniority list, the DPC could not have considered the candidature of the candidates and made recommendations for promotion. Consequently, prayed for holding of Review DPC year -wise for the year 2002 -03 and 2003 -04. The recommendations of DPC held on 9th February, 2004 were assailed for the reason that the provisional seniority list dated 24th April, 1999 was not finalized wherein name of the appellant before the Tribunal appeared at serial number 546. Another seniority list was issued on the same date for serial number 695 to 1918, and the DPC was convened on the basis of the provisional seniority list. 124 vacancies of Executive Engineer (Civil) were available in view of 89 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which were upgraded by order dated 13th December, 2002 and 35 vacancies were available on account of retirement. Therefore, instead of convening the DPC for 124, vacancies ought to have been first determined for the year 2002 -03. Moreover, these vacancies were clubbed with the vacancies of 2003 -04 and DPC was convened on 9th February, 2004, by which 150 Assistant Engineers were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 25th February, 2004 against the vacancies year 2003 -04. However, an order of status -quo on the seniority list restraining the Department from holding the DPC on 11st February, 2004 was operating in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.904 of 1999 although the special appeal was dismissed on 25th February, 2004 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the learned Tribunal. Further, the amendment dated 7th April, 2003, amending various Rules including the Rajasthan Service of Engineers and Research Officers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1954', for short), extending the zone of consideration for reserved category candidates was from five to seven times. Therefore, the zone of consideration with reference to vacancies of the year 2002 -03, for the reserved category candidates of SC/ST ought to have been restricted to five times and the amended zone of consideration of seven times, could not have made applicable to 124 vacancies. Hence, the action in clubbing the vacancies of the year 2002 -03 with the year 2003 -04 and application of amended rule of extended zone of consideration of seven times, was bad in the eye of law. The State/respondents admitted the fact of upgradation of 89 posts from Assistant Engineer (Civil) to Executive Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 13th December, 2002 and availability of 35 vacancies of 2002 -03 on account of retirement. It is also an admitted the fact that DPC which met on 9th February, 2004, for the year 2002 -03 resolved to keep vacant 35 vacancies of reserved category for SC/ST and recommended for selection for the year 2002 - , be included in the vacancies of 2003 -04. It is further an admitted case that the DPC which met on 9th February, 2004, considered 184 (149+35) vacancies and the order of promotion dated 25th February, 2004, was issued applying the amended zone of consideration. Furthermore, the candidates of reserved category upto serial number 987 in the seniority list could only be considered within the zone of consideration under the unamended rules even while operating the provisional seniority list. 3. The Tribunal taking into consideration the pleaded facts, materials available on record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, allowed the appeal with a direction to hold the review DPC, after finalization of the provisional seniority list dated 24th April, 1999; and to consider 124 vacancies for the year 2002 -03 and subsequent vacancies for the subsequent year, by applying the rules in existence at the time of occurrence of the vacancies. The candidature of the appellant before the learned Tribunal would also be considered if he is otherwise found eligible.
(3.) THE appellants/petitioners, who were not party to the appeal before the learned Tribunal, questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 7th December, 2009 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge considered the challenged on the issue; (i) Whether 89 vacancies, upgraded to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 13th December, 2002, would be considered as vacancies for the year 2002 -03 or 2003 -04 while the DPC was convened on 9th February, 2004? And (ii) Whether promotion can be recommended by the DPC, without finalization of the provisional seniority list?;