Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalit Shanker Sharma vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:37396) on 20 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37396]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3919/2005
Lalit Shanker Sharma, aged 37 years, Son of Shri Madan Lal
Sharma, R/o Qr. No. D/12, Staff Colony, MLV Textile Institute,
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajastan through the Secretary, Technical Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The MLV Textile Institute, Bhilwara through its Principal.
3. Raghuuvir Singh Jhala son of Shri Chandan Singh Jhala, aged
39 years, Resident of D/5, Staff Colony, MLVTI, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain.
Mr. Darshan Jain.
Mr. Mudit Balia.
Ms. Raveena Mandora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order 20/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Advertisement dated 28.05.2005 (Annex.7) whereunder, fresh applications were invited for the post of Lecturer (Technical) by way of direct recruitment in Textile Technology. The petitioner further seeks appointment/promotion on the post of Lecturer (Technical) in terms of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission in the month of October, 1992 and pass appropriate orders in this regard.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was recruited on the post of Demonstrator in the respondent No. 2-MLV Textile Institute, Bhilwara. The respondent No.2 is an autonomous institution affiliated with the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). The respondent No.2 had passed a resolution dated 07.07.1990 adopting the Services Rules of the State (D.B. SAW/462/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:44:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37396] (2 of 5) [CW-3919/2005] Government till the Committee constituted for framing of the Service Rules, frames and approves the Rules.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Service Rules of the State Government, i.e. Rajasthan Technical Services Rules of 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1973'), the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Technical) and the only post which is advertised and sought to fill by direct recruitment was without giving an opportunity of promotion to the petitioner and the petitioner should have been considered for promotion as Lecturer (Technical) in stead of filling-up the post by direct recruitment by issuing the advertisement in question.
4. According to the petitioner, in terms of Rule 6-A of the Schedule of the Rules of 1973, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Technical) and which has not been done, as such, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The case of the respondents is that they admit appointment of the petitioner as a Demonstrator by the proceedings dated 12.11.1991 (Annex.1) and the respondent No.2 is an autonomous college affiliated with the AICTE and the respondent No.2 is governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules. Further case of the respondents is that there is no promotion to the post of Lecturer (Technical) from the cadre of Demonstrator and entire post of Lecturer (Technical) is required to be filled-up by way of 100% direct recruitment and no by promotion, as claimed by the petitioner.
6. Heard both the sides.
(D.B. SAW/462/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:44:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37396] (3 of 5) [CW-3919/2005]
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's service is governed by the Service Rules of the State Government, i.e., the Rules of 1973 and as per Rule 6-A of Schedule of the Rules of 1973, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted and without taking into consideration the same, the respondents had issued the advertisement in question for filling- up of the post of Lecturer (Technical) by direct recruitment which is impermissible. It is also submitted that the resolution dated 07.07.1990 of the respondent No.2 clearly indicates that the service conditions of the employees of the respondent No.2 shall be governed by the Rules of 1973. As per the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as a Lecturer (Technical).
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 institute is an autonomous institution and their services are governed by the Rules of 1973 as well as by the Guidelines issued by the AICTE. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion and there is no cadre of Demonstrator under the Rules of 1973. It is submitted that under the Rules of 1973, the post of Lecturer (Technical) is required to be filled-up 100% by way of direct recruitment and only one exception is there i.e. when the Rules were framed, a one time opportunity was to be given to the existing cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor for promotions. After this exercise, the left over cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor has become a dying cadre. Subsequently, all the vacancies arose of Lecturer (Technical) are required to be filled-up 100% by way of direct recruitment only and not by any Demonstrator by (D.B. SAW/462/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:44:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37396] (4 of 5) [CW-3919/2005] promotion. Therefore, the case set up by the petitioner is misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In order to resolve the issue raised by both the sides, it is apt to refer to the relevant provision i.e. Rule 6-A of the Schedule of the Rules of 1973 which reads as follows:-
"SHCHEDULE Name of Method of Minimum Posts or post Qualification Remark Post Recruitment Qualificatio which and Experience n for direct promotion are for promotion recruitment to be made A) Lecturer 100% by Demonstrator/ 1. Degree in The cadre of (Technical) direct Drawing Engineering of Demonstrator/ recruitment Instructor/ a University Drawing subject to Workshop established by Instructor/ filling up Instructor in law in India in Workshop the post by Technical appropriate Instructor in promotion subjects branch or its Technical from equivalent subjects is available qualification dying cadre persons recognized by and after mentioned the Govt. nmber of the in column 2. Five yrs existing No.3 experience on incumbents are the post exhausted by mentioned in way of column No. 5 promotion of their having acquired the prescribed qualification and experience mentioned in coloumn No.6 no further promotion to the post mentioned in column No.2 shall be made.
10. A reading of the above Rules, it is clear that the Lecturer (Technical) is a post which is required to be filled-up by way of 100% direct recruitment and there is an exception. The exception is that in the transition period, one time opportunity is to be given to the cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (D.B. SAW/462/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:44:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37396] (5 of 5) [CW-3919/2005] (Technical). After exhausting the promotions, any cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor exists, such a cadre has become a dying cadre. This means that there is no further promotion from the existing cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor for the post of Lecturer (Technical). This means that after one-time opportunity is exhausted, there cannot be any promotion from the cadre of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/Workshop Instructor. All the posts of Lecturer (Technical) are required to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. The above Rule, ex facie, is not applicable to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner's recruitment itself is in the year 1991 and if we go by strict application of the Rules of 1973, in fact, there is no post of Demonstrator and the post of Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/ Workshop Instructor has been abolished as there is no such a cadre exists in the Service Rules of 1973. This Court is not inclined to go on the validity of the recruitment. If the petitioner's case is considered in the light of the Service Rules of 1973, as the entire post of Lecturer (Technical) is required to be filled-up 100% by direct recruitment, there is no question of any promotion of the already existing cadre of Demonstrator as on the date of the Rules coming into force, i.e. 1973. Therefore, the entire writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the present petition is dismissed in light of the observations/discussion made hereinabove.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 1-Mohan/-
(D.B. SAW/462/2006 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:44:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)