ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Weaving Master -cum -Designer, Drugget Carpet Production -cum -Demonstration Centre, Jaipur, by order dated 26.11.1957, and his services were placed on probation for one year w.e.f. 27.11.1957. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Designer at Handicraft Development Centre, (Department of Industries), Jaipur, w.e.f. 1.4.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent -cum -Designer, Handloom Design Centre, Kithoon, w.e.f. 14.5.1970, on which post he continued till he received his next promotion as Assistant Director (Technical) w.e.f. 28.3.1972. All the aforesaid promotions were made by the respondents on ad -hoc basis.
(2.) CONSEQUENT upon petitioner's promotion earlier as Superintendent -cum -Designer. his lien on the post of Designer was suspended under Rule 17(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (for short the Rules) by order dated 9.2.1972. Subsequently one Atma Prasad Singh was appointed substantively on the post of Designer vide order dated 15.2.1972. The post of Superintendent -cum -designer was encadred post of the Industries Department. Since 22.8.1972 when the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Director in the Industries Department, he continued to discharge his duties on the same post till he retired from service of the said department on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner has represented his matter for confirmation on the post of Assistant Director time and again and as and when the persons who were immediately placed below the petitioner in order of seniority were promoted to the post of Deputy Director. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1772/1982, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fersh one on 22.11.1982, which was filed on 11.5.1983 as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/1983. That writ petition was decided on 3.9.1986. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition gave directions to the respondents to decide the matter of (i) petitioner's confirmation on the post of Assistant Director within four moths w.e.f. 3.9.1986; (ii) thereafter to decide the matter of his seniority and (iii) after fixation of his seniority to decide the question of his eligibility for further promotion in accordance with rules. It has been contended by the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the order was not complied with within the stipulated time and he was compelled to move this Court by filing contempt petition vide D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 60/1987. While disposing of the contempt petition, the learned Division Bench of this Court was of the view that since the question regarding the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director had since already been decided by the respondents and question with regard to his seniority had also been tentatively decided, the contempt petition was dismissed being not maintainable on merits. While disposing of the contempt petition, this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner's appointment on the post of the Superintendent -cum -Designer was made substantively against the vacancy of the year 1985 -86 and further by order dated 5.8.1987, the petitioner had since already been confirmed on the post of Assistant Director and the provisional seniority list had also been issued by the respondents followed by a fresh tentative seniority list dated 18.12.1988, and since the petitioner had already been heard by the department as regards the objections in respect of the aforesaid seniority list i.e., tentative and provisional seniority list, he had no grievance to advance either before the department of before the Court.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the above fact that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Superintendent -cum -Designer was appointment on the post of superintendent -cum -Designer was substantive against the vacancy of the year 1985 -86 and he had also been confirmed on the promotional post of Assistant Director on 5.8.1987, consequent upon is having been promoted on the said post in March 1972. It has also not been disputed that when at the time of passing of the order dated 28.3.1972, the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Director (Industries) he was holding the substantive post of Superintendent -cum -Designer and thereafter he had been promoted as Assistant Director and the respondent had, therefore, assigned the seniority year of 1985 -86, instead of 1984 -85 and this fact is fully borne out from the relevant documents on the record.;