MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), by this petition for writ is claiming to be considered for promotion to selection grade of RAS against the vacancies relating to the year 1991-92 by redetermination of the number of vacant posts.
(2.) THE factual matrix as emerging from pleadings of the case is that the petitioner become a member of RAS in the year 1978 and was promoted to its senior scale against the vacancies of the year 1984. By an order dated 10. 2. 1992 she was promoted to the selection grade of RAS for the vacancy year of 1991-92 subject to review and revision as prescribed under Rule 28 (B) (b) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1954") against the vacancies relating to seniority- cum-merit quota. Relevant to note here that as per Rule 28 (B) (6) of the Rules of 1954 selection for promotion to all higher posts or categories other than the junior scale of RAS is required to be made on basis of merit and on basis of seniority-cum-merit in equal proportion. For the year 1991-92 the respondent State determined 24 vacancies in selection grade of RAS available to general categories for promotion sought to be filled in by maintaining equal ratio under the quota of merit and seniority- cum-merit. The Government of Rajasthan in compliance of the directions given by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in appeals No. 345/88, 116/92, 227/83 and in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ (1995)2 Suppl. SCC 431] ordered for review of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held earlier for the year 1987-88 to 1994-95, accordingly review was made and an order dated 23. 2. 1996 was passed making promotions to selection grade of RAS for the year 1987-88 to 1994- 95. By the order aforesaid promotion was given to the petitioner in selection grade for the vacancy year of 1992-93 against the vacancies relating to merit quota. By the same order 12 officers including one Shri S. D. Sharma were promoted to selection grade of RAS for the vacancies relating to the year 1991-92 against merit quota. A challenge was given to the promotion of the aforesaid Shri S. D. Sharma by respondent No. 4 Shri O. P. Harsh before the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal that came to be accepted by judgment dated 9. 9. 1997 directing the State Government to promote respondent No. 4 Shri O. P. Harsh to selection grade of RAS against the vacancies of the year 1991- 92. Learned Tribunal held that Shri O. P. Harsh was senior to Shri S. D. Sharma and his candidature was not less meritorious than Shri S. D. Sharma, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted to selection grade of RAS against the vacancies relating to the year 1991-92. An appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 Shri B. L. Gupta also came to be accepted by the tribunal vide order dated 16. 12. 1998 with a direction to promote him to selection grade of RAS for the vacancy year of 1991-92. The respondent No. 2 Shri Anil Kumar Chaplot also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal that too came to be accepted vide order dated 21. 6. 1999 in following terms:- " In the light of the above, the appeal is accepted. The Respondent State Government is directed to hold review DPC for the year 1991-92 and consider Appellant's candidature; particularly in the light of selection of his junior Shri O. P. Harsh in that year. The last DPC took place on 23. 2. 96, while DOP's clarification regarding treating "above Average" as "very Good" was issued on 3. 12. 96. Hence the review DPC should grade the ACRs in the light of this clarification of the DOP. The other ACRs should be graded in the light of para 5. If selected the Appellate should be given all consequential benefits from the day, his juniors has been given such benefits. The Respondent State should hold the review DPC pertaining to the Appellate within three months. "
(3.) THE direction as above was give by holding Shri O. P. Harsh, a person junior to Shri Anil Kumar Chaplot, as such the State Government was required to review proceedings of the DPC and the case of Shri O. P. Harsh was also to be reconsidered being junior to Shri Chaplot. Certain other appeals of similar nature preferred by respondents Sarva Shri Hanuwant Singh Bhati, Murli Manohar Joshi, O. P. Saharan and Dharmendra Bhatnagar were also accepted by the Tribunal with a direction to consider their candidature for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1991-92 by holding meeting of DPC to review its earlier recommendations. In the case of Hanumant Singh Bhati (respondent No. 6) the Tribunal while accepting the appeal also observed as follows:- " Before parting with this case, we would like to advise the State Govt. not to take piecemeal decisions in such matters; it is this tendency, which has triggered so much of avoidable litigation. If so many officers of the top State service have to knock the portals of the courts, it is not a happy augury. Some thing is seriously wrong somewhere. It is high time the State Govt. takes an integrated view of the entire issue instead of reacting in a mechanical way in each individual case. The State Govt. would be exposing itself to the charge of favouratism and discrimination if it selectively implements some of our decisions while stoutly contesting other cases of identical nature. It was mentioned before us that in pursuance of this Tribunal's order in the case of Shri O. P. Harsh, the year of allotment was revised from 1993-94 to 1991- 92 while in other cases of similar nature. Cases are being contested in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court. This embarrassing position can be avoided if a common view is taken on same of the hotly contested issues and uniform treatment is allowed to all the concerned officers, irrespective of the fact whether they have approached the courts or not. " In view of various orders of Tribunal the State Government by orders dated 26. 3. 1998, 25. 1. 2000, 9. 6. 2000 (Anx. 6), 9. 6. 2000 (Anx. 7), 9. 6. 2000 (Anx. 8), 9. 6. 2000 (Anx. 9), and 9. 6. 2000 (Anx. 10), promoted respondents Sarva Shri O. P. Harsh, Hanumant Singh Bhati, Anil Kumar Chaplot, Om Prakash Saharan, Nathu Lal Verma, Murli Manohar Joshi and Dharmendra Bhatnagar respectively to selection grade RAS for the vacancy year 1991-92 against the vacancies of merit quota. By making such promotions the State Government exceeded vacancy quota available to be filled in by way of promotion under the criteria of merit. The petitioner also by way of filing an appeal before the Tribunal assailed validity and propriety of the order dated 23. 2. 1996 and the same is still pending consideration, however, from the averments contained in reply to that appeal the petitioner came to know about promotions of respondents No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, hence she preferred this petition for writ. ;