- (1.) IN this Contempt Petition, the applicants have made a complaint that the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 29.10.2013, has not been complied with, inasmuch as the operative portion of the order, that the respondents would take immediate steps to compute their entitlementS and release the consequential financial benefits to them for the services rendered, if not already done, would mean that the applicants were given all the reliefs which they were claiming in the writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The review petition has also been dismissed. The Special Appeal was thereafter dismissed on merits, following the legal proposition, as affirmed in State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Godika and Ors., 1993 1 UJ 538, in which it was held that the manner in which the Rule is to work, namely first all the persons in Group 'E' to Group 'D', Section II, will be considered for promotion moving to Group 'F', if necessary, for filling only the remaining vacancies by selecting outstanding amongst them who satisfy the requirement of Explanation to Rule 25(11), and which ensures fairness to all, while also maintaining efficiency in the administration. It was held that a reasonable interpretation of the Rules provide that if the need arises to look to Group 'F' for filling the remaining vacancies on account of want of suitable persons in Group 'E', the promotions may be given. Those found unsuitable in Group 'E' cannot thus complain of discrimination if persons duly qualified and more suitable performing similar functions are selected, since the unsuitable left out in Group 'E' are excluded from the competition on the ground of unsuitability and cease to remain contenders for the remaining posts.
(3.) THE Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal, held as follows: - "A plain reading of the above quoted text would demonstrate that their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court though had noticed that appointment to Group 'D' posts were to be made through promotion to the extent of 100% to the respective identities of the incumbents in Group 'E' and Group 'F' had been maintained and that considering the manner of operation of the Rules for the said exercise, incumbent in Group 'E' were to get precedence in the matter of consideration for such promotion and it was only in absence of the suitable candidates in Group 'E' that the remaining vacancies are to be filled up by Group 'F' incumbents. The comprehension of a combined seniority list of group 'E' and group 'F' candidates on the basis of the norms, as contemplated in Rule 28(7) as a condition precedent for recommendation for promotion to group 'D' was thus neither entertained nor approved. Though in the course of the arguments, the appellants did endeavour to impress upon us to take a different view on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court on the same issue, it is noticeable that the decision rendered in Rajendra Kumar Godika had arisen from the verdict of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.694 -96 of 1993 and 697 -97 of 1993 decided on February 18, 1993. Having regard to the legal proposition enunciated in Rajendra Kumar Godika by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue raised before us, we see no reason to take a different view form the one recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and the order dated 7.1.2013 rejecting the review petition. On being queried by us, the appellants have submitted that appellant No.1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Shri Bhagwan Gupta (writ petitioner No.4) have since retired from the post of Principal." It appears that at the time of dismissing the Special Appeal, a submission was made that the appellants have not been paid the entire superannuation benefits. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal, made an observation apparently in equitable exercise of its jurisdiction as follows: - "Be that as it may, the respondents would take immediate steps to compute their entitlements and release the consequential financial benefits to them for the services rendered, if not already done. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.";