RATHORE, J. - (1.) SINCE all these writ petitions are similar in nature, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.
(2.) IN S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3355/2004- Hanuman Singh Bhati & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned seniority list dated 4. 5. 2004 (Annexure-12 & 13) as on 1. 4. 1993 and 1. 4. 1994 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to hold the review board only after the seniority list of RAS officers is finalised as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court given vide orders dated 30. 5. 2001 and 12. 9. 2001 and only after it has been made public. (iii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to convene the regular board for promotion from RAS to IAS from years 1995-96 and onwards simultaneously holding the review board for the years 1993-94 and 1994- 95. (iv) Or any other prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, against the rights and interest of the petitioners, the same may kindly be taken on record and be also quashed and set aside. (v) Or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (vi) The cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded to the petitioners. In another writ petition i. e. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1742/2008- Ajay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to include the name of the merit promotees (1991-92) including the petitioner in the list to be sent to UPSC for convening IAS Board (1996-97 to 2007-08) over and above the reserved categories candidates as had been shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents on 26. 6. 2000 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 12. 9. 2001 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 1078-1081/2005 (case of Shivnath Prasad ). In the alternative if the names are not sent as mentioned above, then the respondents be directed not to convene the IAS Board till the seniority lists are prepared finally in the light of the decision dated 12. 9. 2001 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivnath Prasad' case. (ii) Or any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The cost of the litigation may kindly be allowed to the petitioner. In yet another writ petition i. e. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4866/2008- Ajay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 12. 5. 2008 (Annexure-2) issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel (A-4) Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ia) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned final seniority list dated 24. 6. 2008 (Annexure-3), issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list to be sent to UPSC for convening IAS Board (1996-97 to 2007-08) over and above the reserve categories candidates as had been shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents on 23. 2. 1996 and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 12. 9. 2001. (iii) Or any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) The cost of the litigation may kindly be allowed to the petitioner. The facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4866/2008 are taken as leading case. The petitioner was appointed as RAS officer in junior scale of RAS on 15. 10. 79. He was promoted in the senior scale of RAS in the month of February, 1987 and was promoted in selection scale of RAS in the year 1992 subject to review/revision on the basis of 5 out of 7 APARs as against the vacancies of 1992-93. The criteria of merit promotion on the basis of 5 out of 7 APARs was for the first time amended and notified vide notification dated 30. 11. 1991. Earlier to this notification, for merit promotion there was a requirement of having 7 out of 7 consistently outstanding/ very good APARs vide notification dated 11. 04. 1979.
(3.) AS per the petitioner, in the case of Shambhu Singh Meena And Others vs. State of Rajasthan And Others, decided on 19. 04. 1995 and reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 431, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the notification dated 30. 11. 1991 is to be applied prospectively. In this view of the matter, a review DPC was held on 23. 02. 1996 and the petitioner was found to have been entitled for merit promotion in selection scale of RAS as against the vacancies of 1991-92 having been found consistently 7 out of 7 outstanding/very good APARs. The name of the petitioner is appearing at No. 5 in the order dated 23. 02. 1996 as against the merit promotion/selection scale and 12 vacancies were filled for the merit promotees in the year 1991-92 and in the above 12 persons, the petitioner's name is at No. 5. Further the petitioner was again shown to have been promoted in the selection scale of RAS against the merit quota of 1991-92 vacancies in the provisional seniority list issued on 01. 04. 1998. The aforesaid seniority list was changed by the State Government by issuing another provisional seniority list dated 26. 06. 2000 showing it to be drawn on the basis of the case of Ajit Singh And Others (II) vs. State of Punjab And Others, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209. In the aforesaid seniority list the petitioner's seniority position was changed by placing the superseded officers of the general category who were promoted later in the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 above the petitioner. The officers to whom the petitioner superseded while he had been given merit promotion in the year 1992-92 in merit are Sarva Shri Keval Kumar Gupta, Satish Chander Mehra, Manmath Kumar, Radhey Shyam Gupta, Krishan Gopal Agarwal, Chothmal Khatri, Hement Sess, Smt. Parmila Surana, Dungardan Charan, Ahasan Ahmed Chhipa, Suneel Dhariwal, Hastimal Chandalia, R. C. Dharmani and Mohammed Farooq-I. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2968/2000 challenging the placing of superseded officers over and above him and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30. 05. 2001. Against the said judgment, the State Government filed special appeal but the same came to be dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 12. 09. 2001. It is also submitted that reserve category officers have also filed various writ petitions challenging their placement below their senior batch-mates on the ground of consequential seniority and the aforesaid writ petitions were also dismissed vide aforesaid common judgment dated 30. 05. 2001. Special Appeals preferred by the reserve category officers were also dismissed by the Division Bench vide common judgment dated 12. 09. 2001. So far as reserve category officers are concerned, it attained finality as the reserve category officers did not file any special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ;