SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against order dated 21.7.16 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant to consider his candidature against the Sports persons' quota, for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The appellant has also assailed the order dated 23.11.17 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition preferred by him seeking review of order dated 21.7.16.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the appellant being a Hockey Player was accorded appointment on the post of Conductor vide order dated 31.10.87 issued by the Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), Udaipur on daily wages basis, however, he was retrenched from service vide order dated 12.4.89. Later, he was re-appointed as Conductor on daily wages basis vide order dated 3.6.93 issued by the Chief Manager, RSRTC, Udaipur Depot. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.1.98 he was confirmed on the post of Conductor w.e.f. 5.9.96. In the year 2005, the candidature of the eligible candidates was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector inter alia against the Sports persons' quota but the candidature of the appellant was not considered. The appellant made representation but to no avail. In these circumstances, the legality of the action of the RSRTC in denying consideration of his candidature for promotion against the sports quota, was assailed by the appellant by way of writ petition, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order under appeal. The review petition preferred has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition noticed that initially in the year 1987, the appellant was accorded appointment as Conductor on daily wages basis being Sportsperson and thereafter, he was retrenched and later re-appointed against the Sports persons' quota. Learned Single Judge observed that the re-appointment of the appellant would co-relate to his original appointment and thus, the appointment of the appellant has to be considered against the sports quota. Keeping in view the provisions of clause 6(4) of the Regulations, the learned Single Judge observed that until and unless the appellant secured the position of a winner or a runner up in international tournament during his service tenure, he cannot be given advantage of promotion against the sports quota having already taken advantage of his sports proficiency while gaining the appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The review petition preferred was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that there is no error apparent to the face of record.;