M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner H. K. Hingorani by this writ petition has sought to quash his order of reversion dated 8 -7 -1974 and has further sought to quash the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 20 on the post of Executive Engineers consequent to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, referred to as the 'DPC') by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. He has further, sought a direction that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be ordered to make selections afresh according to law.
(2.) THE present writ petition arises under the following facts and circumstances. After serving as Engineering Subordinate the petitioner was appointed to be the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis by an order dated 4 8 -1961 and after regular selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Engineer the petitioner was appointed to the said post on 26 -9 -1961 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer temporarily by an order dated 17 -5 -1973. In the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers, Civil) of the Irrigation Department dated 11th June, 1964 his name was shown at serial No. 145. There were two adverse entries in the confidential roll of the petitioner for the year 1961 -62 and 1962 -63 and there appears to be no other adverse entry against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, dated 3 -5 -1970 but after preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated by an order of the State Government dated 10 -9 -1971. After two years of his reinstatement, he was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer. For the purposes of making selections to the post of Executive Engineers, the DPC met in the year 1964 and thereafter, no meeting of the DPO took place till June, 1974, with the result that no selections and appointments were made year by year on the post of Executive Engineers as required by Rule 9 read with Rule 24 and Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Rules) The petitioner averred that the State Government did not determine the number of vacancies year by year as required by Rule 9 of Rules. Without doing so, the meeting of the DPC was convened to make selections for all the po9ts of Executive Engineers existent upto the date the DPC met by clubbing all the vacancies together. The DPC is said to have made selections for all the posts of Executive Engineers then existing and respondents No. 3 to 20 are said to have been appointed to the post of Executive Engineers on the recommendations of the DPC and it was alleged that the promotions were effected by an individual order and not by any consolidated order. It was further alleged that the respondents No. 3 to 14 were already officiating on the post of Executive Engineers and respondents No. 15 to 20 have been newly selected.
(3.) BY order dated 8 -7 -1974, the petitioner along with three others was reverted from the pout of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioner, no order of reversion was served on him and he has reproduced the order of reversion dated 8 -7 -1974 on the basis of the order served on Shri M.P. Rankawat.;