- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed aggrieved by non-promotion of petitioners on the post of LDC. Shri Y. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners, who were substantially appointed as Class-IV employee and are working in Government Mental Hospital, are entitled to be promoted on the basis of their seniority to the post of LDC. The respondents have not hereby determined the vacancies according to Rule 7 of Rajasthan Class-IV Employees (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules. Learned counsel referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bairwa Vs. State : SBCWP No.700/1993 decided on 24.1.1994 and argued that this Court in the aforesaid judgment directed the respondents to prepare zone-wise seniority and accordingly grant promotion. In compliance of that order respondents issued a promotion order on 10.11.1994 granting promotion to as many as eight persons, who were petitioners in that writ petition. However, promotion has not been granted to petitioners. Name of petitioners ought to have been mentioned in the seniority list, therefore, their case should have been considered on the post of LDC in accordance with Rule 7 of Rajasthan Class-IV Employees (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules. Learned counsel submitted that in the order dated 10.11.1994 the persons were granted promotion, who were appointed in the year 1992, but the petitioners No.1, 2 & 3 while respectively appointed on 1.2.1978, 1.10.1978 and 23.12.1983 as Class-IV employees yet have not been granted promotion. Shri V. B. Sharma, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that judgment of this Court in Chandra Bairwa (supra) does not apply to the case of petitioners because that was a case pertaining to seniority of Class-IV employee working in various Government hospitals and other hospitals in Jaipur have separate seniority list of Class-IV employees of each hospital unit, therefore, seniority should not be compared to that of those persons. Learned counsel submitted that seniority list was issued on 28.5.1986 in which name of petitioner No.2 Om Prakash at Serial No.44, Petitioner No.1 Sitaram Khatik at Serial No.61 and petitioner No.3 Raj Kumar at Serial No.68. The promotion of Class-IV employees to LDC was given by the seniority list, which was issued by Superintendent of Mental Hospital, so far as petitioners have not been promoted because their turn had not yet come. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that when seniority list of those working in mental hospital is separately maintained. Petitioners can have no comparison of their seniority with those who are working in various hospitals and falling under the control of Chief Medical & Health Officer. Even if the persons who are named in order dated 10.11.1994 were appointed later than the petitioner, this cannot be a basis to annul their appointment or hold that their promotion caused any discrimination to the petitioners. Petitioners have independent right for promotion based on their inclusion in the seniority list at the level of mental hospital. No particulars or date whether any of their juniors has been promoted earlier in point of time ignoring claim of petitioners. No rule has been cited to show that seniority list of Class-IV employees working in mental hospital and those in various government hospitals in Jaipur should be maintained together. No case of issuing mandamus is, therefore, made out especially when it is shown that there are many more Class-IV employees in the seniority list in which the name of petitioners are included, have yet not been promoted. It is however observed that if and when vacancies arise claim of petitioner shall be considered consistent with seniority of Class-IV employees maintained at Government Mental Hospital earliest in point of time. The writ petition is dismissed with those observations.;