VYAS, J. - (1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to place before this Court the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 3. 5. 93 and to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager w. e. f. 2. 12. 1987 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts inter alia narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Traffic inspector on 5. 5. 74 after due selection. Before his appointment as Traffic inspector/assistant Depot Manager, he successfully completed the 7th Management Development Programme for Traffic Officers from Central institute of Rod Transport (Training & Research), Poona. The petitioner was confirmed as Traffic inspector w. e. f. 6. 5. 75. He was charge-sheeted on 18. 3. 1983 under Regulation 34 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 and against the said charge-sheet, he filed his reply. ultimately in the departmental enquiry, he was awarded punishment of censor vide order dated 14. 5. 1985, which is placed on record as Annexure-5. it is stated in the writ petition by the petitioner that the alleged negligence for which the censor was awarded was for the period 11. 1982 to 21. 12. 1982. Thereafter, he was sent for course to promotional post. The respondent-Corporation held the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee on 28. 11. 87 and vide order dated 2. 12. 1987, 38 persons were promoted to the post of Depot Manager but name of the petitioner does not find place in the said promotion order but number of persons junior to him were promoted. it is further contended in the writ petition that service record of the petitioner was quite clean and un-blamed except the above noted award of censor for the year 1983 and that too was subjudice before the conciliation officer. According to the petitioner, he was possessing M. A. , L. LB. qualification but he was not recommended for promotion. He filed D. B. civil writ Petition No. 348/88 before this Court at Jaipur Bench. The proceedings of DPC under which the promotions were made was ultimately quashed by this Hon'ble Court and respondents were directed to held fresh DPC to consider the cases of Traffic inspector/assistant Depot Manager for promotion to the post of Deport Manager. Thereafter as per the directions of this Court, the DPC met on 8. 9. 92 and 31 persons were promoted as Depot Manager vide order dated 10. 9. 92. The proceedings of DPC under which 31 persons were promoted was again challenged before this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench and proceedings were quashed and respondents were directed to reconsider the entire matter. Thereafter, at last, the matter for promotion was again placed before DPC on 3. 5. 93 and on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, an order was issued for promotion of 35 persons on the post of Depot Manager on 18. 6. 93. It is stated in para-7 of the writ petition that one Mool Singh Dewal preferred a writ petition being No. 5179/93 before this Court challenging his non-selection in the DPC held on 3. 5. 93 on the ground that the criteria of selection is seniority cum merit and his juniors cannot be promoted unless a finding recorded by the DPC that he is not fit for promotion. in the said writ petition filed by Mool Singh Dewal, this Hon'ble Court passed an order that he may be promoted on the post of Depot Manager within 15 days and may be given seniority w. e. f. 2. 12. 1987. This judgment was upheld upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the service record of the petitioner is clean except the penalty of censor and that too was under challenge before the conciliation officer, Ajmer and he is working with utmost satisfaction of his higher authorities. But he has been denied promotion on extraneous consideration and since the selection is made on the basis of the record, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion unless there is an adverse entry in the service record which creates any disqualification for the promotion. Further, it is submitted that the penalty of censor for the year 1982 cannot be an obstacle for promotion w. e. f. 2. 12. 1987 for the post of Depot Manager. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that his junior persons were considered for promotion while ignoring his case for promotion to the post of Depot Manager, which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the promotion to the post of Depot Manager is made on the basis of the seniority cum merit and in his case censor cannot be treated to be a disqualification for promotion in view of the judgment dated 23. 3. 1990 passed by this Court rendered in SB civil writ Petition No. 2613/87 (Mool Singh vs. R. S. R. T. C. & others), therefore, the action of the respondents for denial of promotion to the petitioner while promoting junior persons is illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. it is submitted that nothing is adverse against the petitioner on record upon which promotion to the post of Depot Manager can be denied. However, he has been deprived his promotion on illegal premises.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that admittedly the penalty of censor which is enumerated in Regulations of Corporation was inflicted against the petitioner and according to Regulation 117, there is a procedure for recruitment by promotion and at the time of considering candidature entire service record including penalty imposed under the disciplinary enquiry is required to be considered. Admittedly in the year 1982, the penalty of censor was inflicted against the petitioner which is enumerated under the Rajasthan state Road Transport workers & workshop Employees Standing Orders 1965. therefore, the petitioner was rightly denied promotion to the post of Depot Manager while taking into account the said penalty under consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of U. O. I. & Ors. vs. K. V. Janikiraman & Ors. , reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and judgment of this Court in case of Mohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , reported in 2002 (5) WLC (Raj.) 691 and latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of union of India & Ors. vs. A. N. Mohanan, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425 and submitted that censor is a punishment enumerated as penalty in the Standing Orders and admittedly it was inflicted upon the petitioner in the year 1982 and the same was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and petitioner was denied promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee which is in accordance with the Standing Orders and Regulations of the respondent-Corporation. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. ;