KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner belongs to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, to be shortly stated hereinafter as the 'R.A.S.', constituted by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, hereinafter to be referred, as the R.A.S. Rules. He joined this service on 26 -8 -55 as Assistant Collector and Magistrate and was confirmed in the R.A.S. on 27 -8 -57. The R.A.S. comprises of three scales of pay:, one is the ordinary time scale 375 -850, the other is the senior scale 700 -1,100, and third is the selection grade 1,100 -1,500. The promotion to the senior scale of the R.A.S. from the ordinary scale of the R.A.S. is both on the basis of seniority -cum -merit as well as strictly on merit. Likewise, the selection to the selection grade is from the senior scale and this is again both on the basis of seniority -cum -merit and strictly on merit. The petitioner was selected in the selection grade of the R.A.S. strictly on the basis of merit, i.e., against the merit quota, in January, 1967. He was thereafter promoted to the selection grade of R.A.S. with effect from 26 -12 -70 again against the merit quota, that is, strictly on merit. Sometime after his appointment to the selection grade Shri Guman Singh's case before their Lodships of the Supreme Court came to be decided on 26 -7 -71. It is the decision of Shri Guman Singh's case that has resulted in the reversal of the petitioner's fortune. The State Government thought that in view of what their Lordships had laid down in Guman Singh's case they had to review the cases of all the promotees to the selection grade of the R.A.S. on the basis of the circular that case to be struck down by their Lordships in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the Government constituted a departmental committee and on the basis of the recommendations made by that committee the Government superseded the previous orders and instead appointed other officers in the selection grade of the R.A.S. with effect from 26 -12 -70. I may read the impugned order of the State Government, dated 12 -4 -73. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(2.) THE petitioner challenges this order. He contends (1) that under the R.A.S. Rules once the Government had made the appointment of an officer to the selection grade in accordance with Rule 32 of the R.A.S. Rules the Government have no power whatsoever to cancel the appointment. In other words, the Government do not have any power of reviewing the previous order. (2) The second contention of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court case on which the Government purperted to rely did not authorise the Government to reopen the cases of other persons who were not before their Lordships of the Supreme Court either in the appeal filed by Shri Guman Singh or in the writ petitions that were disposed of by the same judgment, The petitioner maintains that the operative part of the judgment confined the reviewing of the cases only in respect of the respondents who were before their Lordships and that too vis -a -vis Shri Guman Singh and not others. The State Government had further not followed the principles of natural justice as they did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why his appointment be not cancelled. The writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan, It is denied that the Government were not entitled be review the cases of R.A.S. Officers other than those who were before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It was submitted that as the Government circular on the basis of which promotions to the senior scale of the R.A.S. that were made in 1967 had been struck down, all the appointments made in pursuance thereof were null and void and, therefore, the Government could re -examine the whole position and make fresh selections and appointments on correct basis. Then it was submitted that in Guman Singh's case a stay application was filed on behalf of Shri Guman Singh before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and on 3 -2 -70 the Advocate General had made a submission before their Lordships that he would advise the Government not to make any further promotions or confirmations in the senior scale or higher scales. Subsequently an application was moved on behalf of the State Government modify the submission made on 3 -2 -70 and on the State Government giving an undertaking that all the promotions whether they be in the same line or in some other line shall be subject to orders of the Court in Shri Guman Singh's case the previous order was modified on 21 -7 -70. It was thereafter that the Departmental Promotion Committee met to consider the cases of R.A.S. Officers for promotion to the selection grade and the petitioner, amongst others, came to be appointed on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee to the selection grade with effect from 26 -12 -70. The Government, therefore, maintain that in view of the undertaking that the Government had given before their Lordship of the Supreme Court the appointments or promotions made before the decision of the appeal in Guman Singh's case could only be provisional though they purported to be substantive' and as the circular which was the basis of the promotion had been struck down by their Lordships the order of the petitioner's appointment to the selection grade was reviewed and as a result of the review by the Departmental Promotion Committee others were appointed whereas the petitioner was not so appointed to the selection grade,
(3.) I have to ask myself the following questions and answer them : (1) Whether the Government have the power of review in respect of appointments made to selection grade of the R.A.S. under Rule 32 of the R.A.S. Rules? (2) Whether the orders of appointment as a result of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee made on the basis of the circular that was struck down in Shri Guman Singh's case were void or a nullity so that they could be set aside or ignored altogether or they were only voidable as could be challenged or avoided only by the persons affected by such appointments ? (3) Whether the undertaking given by the Government has a wider ambit so as to entitle them to review the cases of even those officers who were not before their Lordships or the review in terms of the undertaking was to be made only for the benefit of the parties before their Lordships in Guman Singh's case or in the other writ petitions which were decided by the same judgment? ;