HINGLAJDAN CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-228
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 05,2015

Hinglajdan Charan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: - - "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction: I. The second proviso to Rule 9(i) of the Rules of 1957 may kindly be declared illegal and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be struck down. II. The action of non consideration of the seniority of the Patwari transferred on his own request in the same department in pursuance to Rules of 1957 may be declared as illegal and the petitioner be declared to be entitled for consideration of seniority from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Patwari. III. The respondents may be directed to prepare a fresh seniority list having regard to the petitioners' initial appointment as a date of reference for the purpose of fixation of seniority. IV. The respondents may be restrained from making any promotion on the basis of the provisional seniority list (Anx. 5) as well as the final seniority list (Anx. 8) prepared by the respondent No. 4. If promotions have already been made on the basis of Annexures 5 and 8 the same may be declared illegal and be quashed. V. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may be passed in favour of the appellant. VI. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
(3.) RULE 9 (i) and Rule 301 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') are quoted as below: - - "Rule 9: (i) the Collector may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the District and the Sub Divisional Officer may also transfer a Patwari within the Sub -Division: Provided that the State Government may direct the Collector to transfer a Patwari anywhere within the District. Provided further that the State Government may transfer a Patwari, on his own request, from one district to another district, on such transfer the Patwari so transferred shall rank junior to all existing Patwaris of the district to which he is transferred." ::: "Rule 301: Submission of applications. - -(1) For the purpose of selection of candidates by promotion as provided in sub -rule (1) of Rule 284, the Divisional Commissioner shall prepare an interlaced seniority list of all the Patwaris of the Revenue and Land Records Departments serving in the Division irrespective of the district cadre to which they belong. (2) Such number of the Patwaris shall be considered for the preparation of the interlaced seniority list as are within the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. The selection of candidates for promotion shall be made by a committee consisting of the following: 2. DIVISIONAL Commissioner, Chairman District Collector of the Divisional Head Quarter -Member 3. ADDL .Divisional Commissioner, Member Secretary Explanation. - The zone of consideration for the purpose of this rule shall mean five times the number of existing and anticipated vacancies in the cadre of Inspector, Land Records to be filled by promotion in the course of the calendar year. (4) Candidates so selected will be admitted to the Qanungo Training School for training: Provided that the Patwaris who attain the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January next following the year of selection shall be exempted from the training and shall be eligible for appointment as Kanoongo or Inspector, Land Records without such training." In paragraph -5 and 6 of the writ petition, it is admitted that petitioners were transferred on their own request by the Board of Revenue vide orders dated 21.05.1997 and 15.03.1999 respectively from District Rajsamand to District Churu. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on transfer, even if it is on the request of the employee, the seniority from the date of appointment should not be disturbed. The amendment in the Rules was made in the year 1995 whereas the petitioners were appointed in the year 1993. He, however, admits that the request for transfer was made after the Rule was brought into force.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.