Arun Madan, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Officer (Prevention) having been given to the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10-6-1993 of the respondent No. 3. on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in Its meeting convened on 4-6-1993 for the period 1993-94.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of seniority list having been provisionally Issued by the Excise Commissioner on 16-11-1991. for the post of Patrolling Officer (Excise) Prevention Officers, as on 1-4-1991 wherein their names stand at S. Nos. 3 (petitioner No. 1) and 4 (petitioner No. 2) whereas name of respondent No. 4 stands at S. No. 5. and the persons whose names stand at Nos. 1 and 2 were already JQ/LQ/R509/99/ABD/RTI' promoted to the post of Assistant Exercise Officer, therefore, they (petitioners) being senior to the respondent No. 4 were entitled to be promoted to the post in question on the basis of their seniority-cum-merit particularly when their work performance was to utmost satisfaction of their superior officers and always appreciated by them which is evident from the award of cash rewards and appreciation certificates in the year 1989-90. Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Excise (Preventive Officers) Service Rules. 1967 (for short, 'the Rules 1967'), the selection for promotion to the post in question has to be done strictly on the basis of merit and seniority-cum- merit in the proportion of 50 : 50. But, the respondents have violated the aforesaid rules while considering the matter for the post in question which stood vacant for the period 1993-94.
(3.) In reply to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that there was only one post in question lying vacant for the period 1993-94 and as per the Service Rules, 1967, the posts of Assistant Excise Officers (Preventive) are to be filled up in the ratio of 50% by seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit and according to this cycle of promotion under the Rules. 1967. since the last post was filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. therefore, the vacancy for 1993- 94 was to be filled up on the basis of merit and in this view of the matter, for this one post in question five persons holding the posts of Patrolling Officers (Preventive) including the two petitioners and respondent No. 4 besides two others were considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting convened on 4-6-1993 and after examination of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports besides other service records of the officers who were withing zone of consideration, the DPC found suitable and recommended respondent No. 4 for being selected and promoted to the post in question and pursuant thereto vide order dated 10-6- 1993 the respondent No. 4 was promoted on the post in question and consequently he joined on 11-6-1993. In these circumstances, Shri Rathore contended that there was no violation of any of the provisions contained in the Rules, 1967 for promotion to the post in question and since, the petitioners have no case on merit, therefore, their writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;