Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition projecting a challenge to the order dated 20th July, 1996 (Annexure -1), praying for the following relief(s): - - "i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order Dt. 20.7.96 (Annex -11) issued by the respondent No. 2 promoting the respondent No. 3 on the post of Sr. Personal Assistant may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the fixation of pay of respondent No. 3 in terms of Govt. Circular Dt. 25.1.1992 made vide impugned Order (Annex -9) Dt. 20.1.94 be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the promotion of respondent No. 2 on the post of Stenographer Gr.II, Stenographer Grade -I be declared illegal and against the Rules. iv) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be directed to consider the case of petitioner for the post of Sr. Personal Assistant by treating him senior to respondent No. 3 and to promote him as such with all consequential benefits. v) Or any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner. vi) Costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Stenographer in Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) on 23rd April, 1973 so also the respondent number 3 (Keshrilal Nagar), was also appointed as Stenographer on 23rd April, 1973. The petitioner claimed himself to be in possession of the Diploma in Stenography and Stenography from ITI. Since the respondent number 3 was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on ad -hoc/temporary basis on 30th September, 1972, and thereafter, was accorded promotion on ad -hoc basis as Stenographer Grade -II. The same was bad in the eye of law for the post of Stenographer Grade -II, could be filled up by direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent number 3, has been assailed as illegal and contrary to the Scheme of the Rules. Referring to order dated 28th January, 1981 (Annexure -4), the petitioner has emphasized that he had better claim for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade -II, and thereafter, to Grade -I. The petitioner further questioned the promotion of the respondent number 3 as Personal Assistant vide order dated 20th July, 1996 (Annexure -11). In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter -affidavit raising preliminary objections for the same issue was also pending before the Civil Court, as would be reflected from stay order dated 23rd August, 1982 (Annexure -7), and order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate -I, Kota City, in Civil Suit Number 113 of 1981, filed by the respondent number 3. However, subsequently in the year 1999, the civil suit has been dismissed in default.
(3.) THE respondent - UIT supporting it's action has pleaded that promotion of the respondent number 3 to the post of Stenographer Grade -II was made way back in the year 1973, and the challenge made in the year 1997 cannot be sustained. The writ application, therefore, suffers with the vice of delay and laches, and hence, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no benefit of any illegal pay fixation has been extended in favour of the respondent number 3. Further, increments after nine and eighteen years of service are separate issues.;