M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22nd April, 2015 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, State of Rajasthan. A direction is sought for absorption of the petitioner in Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (in short "UIT").
(2.) Learned counsel submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 5th October, 1987. He was thereupon sent on deputation to UIT, Alwar vide order dated 13th October, 2006. The petitioner is working with the UIT, Alwar since then. The petitioner submitted a representation for his absorption in the service of UIT, Alwar. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department (in short "UDH Department") vide his letter dated 22nd January, 2010 asked the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department to send "no objection" for absorption of the petitioner in the service of UIT, Alwar. The Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 4th May, 2011 informed the Deputy Secretary, UDH Department that no departmental inquiry is pending against the petitioner. It was further informed that as against 830 posts of Junior Engineers (Diploma) Civil, 1228 Junior Engineers are working. 105 Junior Engineers are on deputation to various departments thus around 293 Junior Engineers are excess in the Water Resources Department. After few days of the aforesaid communication, another letter was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department informing about shortage of officers in the department, thus application of the petitioner for absorption in the service of UIT, Alwar was rejected vide order dated 30th May, 2011. So far as UIT is concerned, it issued 'NOC' for absorption of the petitioner.
(3.) It was mainly on the ground that department is short of hands thus representation of the petitioner was rejected. Soon thereafter, one Shri Kumar Sambhav Awasthi was absorbed in the service of UIT, Alwar vide order dated 9th June, 2011. The rejection of the representation made by the petitioner thus becomes discriminatory in nature. Infact, number of similarly placed employees have been absorbed in service of the different autonomous bodies by invoking Rule 158 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. The petitioner has been isolated rather discriminated.;