- (1.) BY this petition for writ a direction is sought by the petitioner to promote him as Assistant traffic Inspector w. e. f. 21. 2. 2005, the date on which persons junior to him were promoted as such.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner a conductor with the Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation is having an avenue for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and he also possessed requisite eligibility for such promotion. The Executive Director (Administration) of the respondent Corporation by office order dated 21. 2. 2005 promoted 85 persons as Assistant Traffic inspectors against the vacancies of the year 2004-05. The petitioner then submitted a representation claiming his promotion also being eligible and also on the count that certain persons junior to him were promoted vide the order dated 21. 2. 2005. The General manager (Traffic)-cum-Public Information Officer of the respondent Corporation by communication dated 9. 6. 2008 informed the petitioner that his candidature was considered for the purpose of promotion as assistant Traffic Inspector by the Departmental promotion Committee as per Regulation 117 of the rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees service Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1965") and the same was not found suitable for promotion in view of the fine suffered by him in the year 2003.
(3.) WHILE assailing validity of the decision aforesaid the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per Regulation 117 of the Regulations of 1965 the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit and in such criteria the promotion could have not been denied on the count of imposition of fine as an administrative measure. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit it is the seniority that prevails and the merit is only the minimum necessary efficiency for administration. As such, there was nothing adverse to deny promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Traffic inspector. Reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of this Court in Satyamani tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , SBCivil Writ petition No. 2878/2003, decided on 11. 8. 2006. In the case aforesaid this Court held as follows:- "in view of the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1954 and also in view of the law laid down by this Court in Het Ram dudi's case (supra) while examining suitability of an incumbent various factors are required to be taken into consideration and imposition of a minor penalty cannot be a sole criteria for denying promotion to a person. The procedure for selection under Rule 28 in quite unambiguous terms states that while preparing a list under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit remarks are required to be given for not recommending a person for promotion being unsuitable. No such remarks are available in the record of entire selection proceedings including the minutes of Departmental Promotion committee. The Departmental Promotion committee was required to see the entire service record including the annual confidential reports/annual performance appraisal reports, awards/commendation certificates, entries relating to punishments or pending departmental enquiries etc. and then by analysis of the same an objective remark in relation to suitability was required to be made. The Departmental Promotion Committee should have recorded that how the misconduct for that the petitioner was penalised by a minor penalty effected his efficiency to the extent that he is not suitable to be promoted to Rajasthan police Service. While doing so the committee must keep in mind that under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit it is the seniority that will prevail as the term "merit" under the criteria concerned means the minimum merit necessary for efficiency of administration. From perusal of the record it appears that no such exercise was done while rejecting candidature of the petitioner for promotion to Rajasthan Police Service. ";