Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Modi vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 January, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3994/2019
Rajesh Vyas S/o Shri Murli Dhar Vyas, Aged About 55 Years,
Bheem Ji Ka Mohalla, Neem Ki Gali, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Districts And Sessions Court, Jodhpur, Through The
District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.
2. Sunil Mehta, Senior Reader, Special Judge Cbi Cases,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5239/2018
Kheem Raj Khatri S/o Shri Jawanmal Khatri, Bye Caste Khatri, R/
o Near Iskon Plaza, Sirohi Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Cum Session Judge, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2. High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General
3. Jeeva Ram Meghwal S/o Not Known, C/o Senior Munshrim
Court, Sirohi Rajasthan.
4. Kailash Rawal S/o Not Known, C/o O.s. District Judge
Court, Sirohi Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2018
Kailash Chandra S/o Rewad Lal, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste
Balali, Resident Of Saini Mohalla, Luniyapura, Abu- Road, Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District And Session Judge, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2. High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General.
3. Jeeva Ram Meghwal S/o Veesa Ram Meghwal,, By Caste
Meghwal, In Care Of Senior Munshrim Court, Sirohi
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15348/2018
1. Sanjay Modi S/o Late Shri Sukhdeo Modi, Aged About 47
Years, At Present Posted As Sheristedar Gr. I In The Court
Of Special Judge, Women Atrocities, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Bhupendra Kaushik S/o Shri Brij Lal Kaushik,, Aged About
58 Years, At Present Posted As Senior Reader In The
Court Of Additional District And Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM)
(2 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]
Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District And Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3966/2019
Vijay Nagori S/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Gali No. 11, Kalal Colony, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro City, Jodhpur.
2. Shri Dhanraj S/o Shri Premchand Solanki,, Sr. Munsrim,
District And Sessions Court, Jodhpur Metro City, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4450/2019
Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Manmohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 58
Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Mata Ki Ka Pol, Opposite
Navchokiya Hospital Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur Metro City,
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4599/2019
Bhanwar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Sunthla, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
District And Sessions Court, Jodhpur, Through The District And
Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5038/2019
Sunil Mehta S/o Shri Jaswant Raj Mehta, Aged About 56 Years,
By Caste Mehta, Resident Of 12/4, Chopasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, Metropolitan, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6493/2019
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM)
(3 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]
Rajesh Kumar Tak S/o Shri Ratan Lal Tak, Aged About 59 Years,
54-B, Keshav Nagar, Gali No. 3, Near Seva Bharti Dham, Pal
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Districts And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, District.
2. Sunil Mohnot, Aged About 57 Years, Through C/o Districts
And Session Judge, Jodhpur District.
3. Mohan Lekhwani, Aged About 59 Years, Through C/o
Districts And Session Judge, Jodhpur District.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6725/2019
1. Kailash Puri S/o Sh. Buddha Puri, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of Gandhi Colony, Merta City, District Nagaur.
2. Gulab Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, Aged
About 52 Years, Resident Of Uuchera, Tehsil Mundwa,
District Nagaur.
3. Mool Chand Bhargaw S/o Sh. Madan Lal Bhargaw,, Aged
About 48 Years, Resident Of Opposite Raghunath Mandir,
Merta, District Nagaur.
4. Narendra Kumar Rakhecha S/o Sh. Ram Niwas,, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of Vyas Colony, Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District And Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur
(Raj.).
3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7493/2019
Ghanshyam Lal Ameta S/o Shri Manohar Lal Ameta, Aged About
72 Years, R/o 5/263, Bhindar Ki Haveli, Outside Chandpole,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
District And Sessions Judge Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15331/2019
Shivnath Singh S/o Bhan Singh, Aged About 58 Years, 174,
Eidgah Road, Abu-Road, District Sirohi (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM)
(4 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]
Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District And Sessions Judge, Sirohi, District Sirohi
(Raj.)
3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
4. Visa Ram Kumawat S/o Dana Ji, At Present Posted At
District Court, Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18837/2019
1. Umakant Upadhyay S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Lal Ji Upadhyay,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Near Government
Upper Primary School, Upadhyay Mohalla, Pur Tehsil And
District Bhilwara.
2. Rajendra Prasad Joshi S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Joshi,
Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gaushala Road,
Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.
3. Mohammad Nasim Chipa S/o Late Sh. Nasir Mohammad Ji
Chipa, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Kheradi Mohalla,
Baneda, District Bhilwara.
4. Prakash Asnani S/o Sh. Kishan Chand @ Bhura Lal
Asnani, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 8 Pech
Area, Bhilwara.
5. Udai Lal Vaishnav S/o Late Sh. Sitaram Das Ji Vaishnav,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Gayatri
Nagar, Bhilwara.
6. Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Sh. Late Sh. Samrath Lal Ji
Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 124,
Shivkripa, Gali No. 1, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Bhilwara.
7. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 59 B, Subhash Nagar,
Bhilwara.
8. Amit Kumar Tailor S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji Tailor, Aged
About 49 Years, Resident Of 63- Vistar Paschim, Subhash
Nagar, Bhilwara.
9. Rajendra Prasad Kothari S/o Late Sh. Heera Lal Kothari,
Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of 2-D-8, Chandra
Shekhar Ajad Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rajasthan Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District And Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara (Raj.).
3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
4. Nirmal Kumar Duggar S/o Shri Shanti Lal Duggar, At
Present Posted As Executive Assistant Cum P.s. At The
Court Of District And Session Judge, Bhilwara.
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM)
(5 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]
5. Balkishan Trivedi S/o Shri Banshi Lal Trivedi, At Present
Posted As Stenographer Grade- I In The Court Of Adj
(Woman Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha
Mr. M.S. Godara
Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Mr. Rakesh Arora with
Mr. Naresh Singh
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani
Mr. Ashok Soni
Mr. Rajesh Shah
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 18/01/2023 Pronounced on 24/01/2023
1. The above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.18837/2019, 15348/2018, 15331/2019 & 6725/2019 have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be restrained from including the Stenographers Gr.I and E.A. cum P.A. in the zone of eligibility for the promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim in the DPC going to be convened in the year 2019-20 and subsequent years.
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the stenographers Gr.I and E.A. cum P.A. are not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim under Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, and any such promotion made by the respondents no.2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(iii) Quashment and setting aside of the promotion order to the extent of certain persons, owing to their ineligibility or (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (6 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] otherwise for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, as per the Rules in vogue.
(iv) That the respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the petitioners in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, and to promote them if they are otherwise eligible.
(v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to include the Stenographer Gr.II and Stenographer Gr.III in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, only upon fulfilling the condition laid down under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986.
(vi) that further it is prayed that record of DPC for the concerned period may be called for and be judicially reviewed.
(vii) that further it is prayed that if any proceedings/action is taken by the respondent in violation of the Rules during the pendency of the writ petition, all such proceedings/action as well as the illegal promotions may also be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
1.1 The genesis of the controversy raised in the aforementioned petitions is traceable to sub-rule (v) of Rule 14 Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1986"); the said Rule 14(v) (post amendment) provides for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim.
1.2 As reproduced in the petitions, the said Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986, pre-amendment and post amendment, reads as under:
Pre-amendment:
"14. Promotion-
(v) Selection for promotion to the post of Munsarim shall be made on the basis of merit alone. No person shall be appointed substantively as Munsarim unless (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (7 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] he has been in service for at least ten years and during that period has held the post of Upper Division Clerk or a higher post including that of "Personal Assistant and Stenographers" for at least five years and has passed the Departmental Examinations of Munsarim according to the syllabus and instructions given in Schedule IV."
Post amendment:
"14. Promotion-
(v) Selection for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim shall be made on the basis of merit alone.
No person shall be appointed substantively as Senior Munsarim unless he has been in service for at least ten years and during that period has held the post of Clerk Gr.I or a higher post including that of Stenographer Grade II and Stenographer Gr. III at least five years and has passed the Departmental Examinations of Senior Munsarim according to the syllabus and instructions given in Schedule IV."
2. While in the other petitions, above-numbered, (i) the petitioners are aggrieved by their reversion from the post of Senior Munsarim to that of the post held by them prior to their promotion as Senior Munsarim; (ii) some of the petitioners are aggrieved by their non-consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim from that of Reader Grade-I and other posts, (iii) some petitioners seek their promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade-I to the post of Personal Assistant cum Executive Assistant; and (iv) some of the petitions assail the promotion of some other employees (private respondents herein) on the post of Senior Munsarim, while questioning the validity of the same being unlawful and contrary to the Rules in vogue. The petitioners in those petitions above-numbered also averred that (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (8 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] the said grievance of theirs was not redressed, even when they were entitled for the same in all respects, and also that, the same was denied even when the sufficient posts were lying vacant.
3. The foundational and skeletal facts, which constitute the essence of the present dissension, are identical so much so that the sequence of events, if drawn in brevity would suffice to comprehend the issues to be addressed, and thus, in the present adjudication, the factual matrix of the individual petition(s) is not being portrayed in the present judgment, more particularly, when the detailed arguments advanced on behalf of all the parties in the instant petitions, do enable this Court in arriving at a logical conclusion, that the sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioners herein is the post of Senior Munsarim, either by promotion, or continuity on the said post (subsequent to their promotion). That apart, other ancillary prayers have also been made in the present petitions.
4. As the averments made in the petitions would reveal, there are two cadres involved in the present petitions, namely, Stenographer Cadre and General Cadre (comprising Clerks, Readers, Office Assistants and the other like posts), as reflected in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986, which speaks of the strength of staff. Both the said cadres have different identified posts and channel of promotion, but for the above-quoted amended Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986 w.e.f. 19.07.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as regards inclusion of the Stenographers Grade-I in the zone of consideration, for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, submitted that prior to amendment in the Rules of 1986, the Stenographer Grade-I (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (9 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] (Sr.P.A.) carried a higher pay scale, than that of the post of Munsarim and further the post of Stenographer Grade-I was a gazetted post, whereas the post of Munsarim was a non-gazetted post, and thus, there was no channel of promotion to the post of Munsarim, which, at the relevant time, was carrying lower pay scale.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the post(s) of Munsarim was however, upgraded to the post of Senior Munsarim in light of the Recommendations of the Shetty Commissions, w.e.f.01.04.2003, and accordingly, vide notification dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, all the posts of Munsarim were adjusted/merged/renamed as Senior Munsarim, while making the necessary amendment in the Rules of 1986; the related notification in regard to such merger was also issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan on 02.09.2016; after such merger, as reflected in the said notification dated 02.09.2016, the post of Senior Munsarim which was earlier carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, was upgraded to the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 i.e. higher than the post of Stenographer Grade-I. 6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986 (post amendment) clearly distinguishes Clerk Grade-I or any higher post and Stenographers Grade-II & III; the said Rule does not include Stenographer Grade-I, and hence, when the legislature itself, in its wisdom did not include Stenographer Grade-I for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, then the impugned action of their inclusion herein (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (10 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] clearly amounts to misreading and misinterpretation, of the said Rule, on the part of the respondents, more particularly, when there is no such channel available therefor, even in the Rules in vogue.
6.2 Learned counsel also submits that the Rules of 1986 have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, with the consultation of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan; the Rules are clear and have been followed since 1986; and since, after amendment, they do not provide for promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade-I to that of the post of Senior Munsarim, the impugned action of the respondents is unsustainable in the eye of law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986 clearly provides for inter se seniority between the Stenographers and the General Cadre, and in that case, the members who have put in more years of service are senior, and therefore, in view of a clear provision, the Stenographer Grade-II and Grade-III can only be considered if they fulfill the conditions as laid down in Rule 27 and not otherwise; that if the members of the general cadre are senior to them (Stenographer Cadre) and having more length of total service as envisaged in the Rules, even the inclusion of Stenographer Grade-II & Grade-III in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim is uncalled for. Thus, as per learned counsel, such impugned action on the part of the respondents, even to include the ineligible Stenographers Grade-II & III is contrary to the provision of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986. (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM)
(11 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]
8. As regards the assailment of promotion of some of the private respondents herein (employees), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said private respondents herein were promoted to the post, in complete ignorance of Rules of 1986, apart from the other relevant factors, like, their date of regularization, date of confirmation, total length of service, merit, seniority etc. Thus, as per learned counsel, such impugned promotion order(s) run contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. So far as the issue of reversion of some of the petitioners herein from the post of Senior Munsarim to the post earlier held by them, prior to such promotion, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in regard to such reversion, one of the grounds, as taken by the respondents, is that the same was being done in pursuance of the interim order(s) passed by the Hon'ble Court(s). Learned counsel also submitted that in doing so, the respondents have determined the seniority of the employees incorrectly and also assigned such seniority with effect from an incorrect date; such inaction on the part of the respondents, entailed huge financial loss, apart from loss of service prospects, to the concerned petitioners herein. Learned counsel further submitted that the same was being done, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners concerned, and thus, such impugned action on the part of the respondents, being also violative of the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9.1 Learned counsel also submitted that such impugned reversion was made without even giving due consideration to the (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (12 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] relevant aspects of service jurisprudence, like whether any adverse remark was there in the service record of the concerned employee, whether or not sufficient posts of Senior Munsarim for promotion were available etc.; the respondents did not even conducted an exercise to ensure that the interim orders of the Hon'ble Courts are complied with, without making the impugned reversions in question.
10. As regards, the other ancillary issues, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the submissions, which are identical to the ones, already mentioned above, and hence, to avoid unwarranted repetition, the same are not being narrated in the present judgment.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to reinforce their submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(a) State of Jharkhand Vs. Govind Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 437;
(b) J.P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 134;
(c) M.S. Usmani & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 377;
(d) Sarika Digambar Lokare Vs. Chief Executive Officer, 2015 (4) BomCR 615.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nishant Bapna, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that no controversy can be raised with regard to the provision of sub-rule (v) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1986, looking into the fact (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (13 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] that the amendment incorporated vide notification dated 19.07.2017 is not at all challenged by the present petitioners, and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief from this Court, at this belated stage.
12.1 He further submitted that the unamended Rules specified that the persons holding the post of UDC or higher post, including that of P.A. and Stenographers having the requisite length of service, can be considered for promotion to the post of Munsarim; even prior to the amendment, the Stenographers Grade-I were entitled for and were being considered for promotion to the post of Munsarim (the post which was later on merged into the post of Senior Munsarim).
12.2 He also submitted that the amended Rules clarified that the persons holding the post of Clerk Grade-I or a higher post, including that of Stenographer Grade-II and III and having requisite period of service, shall be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; thus, the said amended Rules nowhere specify that Stenographer Grade-I cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; rather it clarifies that the persons to be promoted must not held the lower post, than that of the Clerk Grade-I or Stenographer Grade-III, for being included within the zone of consideration for such promotion.
12.2.1 In regard to such interpretation, for the purpose of inclusion of the Stenographer Grade-I within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General referred to the expression 'includes', while submitting that the said expression (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (14 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] indicates that the legislature never contemplated that the categories of persons set out in the definition are exhaustive, but on the other hand indicates that those categories are merely illustrative. He further submitted that as per the Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Vol. 3 Page 1333, the said expression is an expression of extension and not of restrictive definition and is not equivalent to 'shall mean'.
12.2.2 In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered in The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Laldee P. Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 5 Bom CR 535.
12.3 As regards the other issues like impugned reversions in question and the promotion in question of the private respondents, he submitted that such action on the part of the respondents were being taken strictly in accordance with law, and while keeping into consideration the factors like eligibility, length of service and the relevant factors alike. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General, such actions taken by the respondents, neither can be said to be contrary to the Rules in vogue, nor contrary to law.
13. Owing to the striking likeness between the factual submissions made by learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the private respondents, the submissions made on behalf of the private respondents do not require reiteration, but for the submission of the private respondents, that the petitioners assailing the promotion of the private respondents on the post in question, are guilty, amongst others, of the material suppression (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (15 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] and concealment of relevant facts, and thus, they have not approached this Court with clean hands.
13.1 Learned counsel for the private respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:
(a) Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54;
(b) Khem Singh Deora Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2003) 1 RLR 845; and
(c) Shiv Charan Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1994) 1 WLN 594.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
15. This Court, at the outset, observes that the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission, were for the welfare of the officers/officials of the staff of the Subordinate Courts, and were implemented retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2003, and the related notification was issued on 19.07.2017, and the same was preceded by the notification dated 02.09.2016 pertaining to the revised pay scale(s) for the posts, amongst others, the post in question i.e. Senior Munsarim, in light of the recommendations of the Commission.
15.1 Indisputably, the recommendations, being implemented with retrospective effect i.e. 01.04.2003, enabled the staff of the Subordinate Courts to derive fruits therefrom in the form of, amongst others, financial benefits etc. (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (16 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] 15.2 The amendment in the Rules, as per learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General, remained unassailed till date, and such factual submission has not been disputed on behalf of any of the petitioners herein.
16. Apart from the above, this Court is convinced with the thrust of arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General that the expression & phrase "including that of Stenographer Grade-II and Stenographer Grade-III" as contained in the aforementioned amended Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986, though exhaustive in nature, but at the same time, the posts of Stenographer Grade-II & III are merely illustrative, and the same cannot mean clear and unambiguous exclusion of the Stenographer Grade-I, from the zone of consideration and eligibility, for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; more particularly, when the unamended Rule 14(v) clearly states, "including that of "Personal Assistant and Stenographers".
16.1 Although the amended Rule 14(v) specifies only Stenographer Grade-II & III, but since the same cannot be construed to clearly exclude Stenographer Grade-I, from the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; as, if it is done, the same would result into an unwarranted flood of litigation, more than, that is already pending before this Hon'ble Court, on the issues in question. Moreover, while making such observation, this Court is conscious of the legislative intent and the prescription of service jurisprudence, which clearly lay down that the person (Stenographer Grade-I - in the present case), who is higher in rank than Stenographer Grade-II & III, shall not be (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (17 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] disentitled for promotion on a higher post of Senior Munsarim in question; more so, while applying the Rule of Purposive Interpretation, in regard to the amended Rule in question. 16.2 Thus, without making any observation on the interpretation and construction of the amended Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986, as derived by the present petitioners, this Court observes that the purposive interpretation, as made by the official respondents, while undertaking the impugned exercise, cannot, in any way, be said to be against the prescriptions of law (service jurisprudence, in particular).
17. As regards the impugned reversions, this Court observes that as a consequence of the above conclusion arrived at by this Court, the above-numbered writ petitions, which assail the reversion of the petitioners, on count of Stenographer Grade-I having become eligible/included in the exercise in question, also deserves dismissal, because once the Stenographer Grade-I either becomes eligible or falls within the zone of consideration for promotion, to the post of Senior Munsarim, looking to their merit as per the Rules, then the consequential and automatic reversion/ exclusion of the other persons concerned, would be justified.
18. Furthermore, as regards the non-consideration for promotion, promotion of the private respondents and other ancillary issues and assailments, this Court, on a careful consideration of the averments made in the petitions as well as in the replies so filed, finds that such actions were taken by the officials respondents, while keeping into due consideration the position of Rules in vogue, as also the tenets of law governing the field pertaining the issues in question; this Court also finds that (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) (18 of 18) [CW-3994/2019] such actions were taken by the official respondents, after due consideration of the material as available in the service record of the concerned person(s), for the said purposes. Thus, in regard to such assailments also, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners do not weigh with this Court.
19. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners thus, do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners herein.
20. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petitions do not merit acceptance.
21. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:35:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)