Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vimal Chand Jain vs State (Revenu Department)Ors on 19 August, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14958/2013 (Vimal Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 19th August, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Petitioner present in person. BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short Tribunal).
The petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal to challenge seniority list on the post of Patwari. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in reference to Rule 9 read with Rule 301 of Rajas than Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short Rules of 1957).
The petitioner challenged his seniority position mainly on the ground that promotion to higher post is based on interlace seniority at divisional level, thus merely seeking transfer from one district to another should not affect his seniority. The Tribunal considered the case in reference to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 to hold that if a Patwari is transferred at his own then he would be ranked junior to person lastly appointed in the district where he has sought transferred. In the instant case, petitioner sought transfer from one district to another, thus as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957, he was ranked junior most in the said district from the date of his transfer. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
9.??????(??????????)-(1) ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ??. [?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????] ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? -?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ????.
?????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ????.
(2) ?? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ? ?? ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ??????, ?????????? ?????? (??????) ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???????. ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ????? (??????) ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??. ??-??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????. ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????.
In view of the above, the petitioner cannot claim seniority from the date of appointment. So far as question of interlace seniority of Patwari of one division is concerned, it is based on seniority of district and petitioner's seniority was ranked from the date he sought transfer from one district to another as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed so as the stay application.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.270 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.