Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kiran Prakash Gaur vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)WLC758, 2003(2)WLN423
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 7.1.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director. Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) by which grant of selection grade on completion of 9 years of service to the petitioner vide order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner who was working as Ferroman was not holding the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Tracer, be quashed and set aside.
2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:
(i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Ferroman vide order dated 29.7.1986 in the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Rajasthan and his services were confirmed on the post of Ferroman with effect from 1.4.1990 through order dated 9.7.1990 (Annex. 1) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Jaipur (respondent No. 1).
(ii) That the further case of the petitioner is that at the time of appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 29.7.1986 there were no rules in the respondent - Department, but in the year 1989 a Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) was annexed with Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960).
(iii) That the further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner was allowed Selection Grade on completion of 9 years of service vide order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 and since then the petitioner was enjoying the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 after being granted selection grade.
(iv) That the further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1), the selection grade which was granted to the petitioner through order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) was withdrawn and the petitioner was fixed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 825-1350 with effect from 29.7.1995.
(v) That it is further submitted by the petitioner that a perusal of order dated 25.1.1992 passed by the Finance Department will show that nowhere in that order, it has been stated that at the time of granting selection grade, a person should possess the qualification for promotional post and the only condition is that he would complete 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Since the petitioner had completed 9 years of service on the date when the selection grade was granted to him, therefore, the selection grade was rightly granted to him.
(vi) That the further case of the petitioner is that the Schedule (Annex. R/1) appended to the Rules of 1960 would show that post of Tracer is promotional post for the post of Ferroman and for getting promotion on the post of Tracer, the qualification is secondary certificate with drawing as one of the subjects of a recognized Board with 5 years experience on the post of Ferroman.
(vii) That it is further submitted by the petitioner that as per notification dated 6.5.1995 (Annex. 4) issued by the Department of Personnel, a person having five years' experience on the post of Ferroman is entitled for promotion to the post of Tracer.
(viii) The petitioner submits that he keeps requisite experience for promotion to the post of Tracer and since at the time of initial appointment, Schedule (R/1) appended to Rules of 1960 was not there, therefore, for all purposes, it would be deemed that petitioner was having requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Tracer from the post of Ferroman and from this point of view also, the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.
3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it is submitted by them that qualification and method of recruitment for the post in subordinate service in the respondent-Department were prescribed by order/Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) attached to the Rules of 1960. Further case of the respondents is that the selection grade was wrongly granted to the petitioner as it was not granted in the spirit of order dated 25.1.1992 (Annex. R/2) as the petitioner was not having requisite qualification for promotional post of Tracer as he did not possess certificate of Secondary examination with drawing as one of the subjects. The marksheet of the petitioner of Secondary Examination is marked as Annex. R/3 and hence withdrawal of selection grade was rightly done by the respondents and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was initially appointed as Ferroman through order dated 29.7.1986. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner was confirmed on that post with effect from 1.4.1990 through order dated 9.7.1990 (Annex. 1). There is also no dispute on the point that the conditions of service of the employees of Science and Technology Department are governed by the Rules of 1960. There is also no dispute on the point that for the post of Ferroman as well as for the post of Tracer, the minimum qualification is Secondary with drawing as one of the subjects, but for the post of tracer, apart from the Secondary with drawing as one of the subjects in secondary examination, 5 years' experience on the post of Ferroman is also must. There is also no dispute on the point that even at the time of appointment as Ferroman in the year 1986 and confirmation on that post in the year 1990, the petitioner was not having secondary with drawing as one of the subjects. From the marksheet (Annex. R/3), it is very much clear that the petitioner possessed the qualification of secondary examination in the year 1989 in Civics, History and Advanced Hindi.
6. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, grant of selection granted to the petitioner in the Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1640 through order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) can be said to have been passed rightly by the respondents or not and if it was passed rightly, then the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respodnent No. 1) cannot be sustained.
7. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Ferroman in the year 1986 when the Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) was not in force, meaning thereby that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Ferroman, the qualification of drawing as one of the subjects was not at all necessary, but this qualification was found necessary when Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1) came into force with effect from 3.11.1989. Since at the time of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1986 the Schedule dated 3.11.1989. (Annex. R/1) was not in force, therefore, the petitioner was rightly confirmed on the post of Ferroman with effect from 1.4.1990 through order dtd. 9.7.1990 (Annex. 1) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department (respondent No. 1) and at the time of confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Ferroman with effect from 1.4.1990, qualification of secondary with drawing as one of the subject was not at all found necessary by the respondents.
8. Promotion to the post of Tracer requires secondary with drawing as one of the subject by the recognized Board and 5 years experience on the post of Ferroman. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is having 5 years experience on the post of Ferroman, but since his appointment was prior to coming into force of Schedule dated 3.11.1989 (Annex. R/1), therefore, possessing the qualification of secondary with drawing as one of the subjects was not necessary and when it was not necessary at the time of initial appointment, that qualification even for promotion would have no relevancy especially when the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Ferroman.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development. Corporation, has observed as under:
Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once, the appointment were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.
10. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly make out a case in favour of the petitioner on the point that educational qualification would be considered at the time of initial appointment and that was considered in his case and thereafter he was confirmed on the post of Ferroman, meaning thereby that qualification of Secondary Examination with drawing as one of the subjects was dispensed with by the respondents at the time when the petitioenr was confirmed on the post of Ferroman and when this qualification was not found necessary at the time of confirmation, therefore, this qualification would not be at all necessary for granting selection grade to the petitioeer. When this being the position, the order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) was rightly passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) by which selection grade was granted to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1640 and when the order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) was found to be within framework of law, the order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) by which the selection grade granted to the petitioner through order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) was withdrawn cannot be sustained.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) is liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 18.12.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Science and Technology Department) by which selection grade granted to the petitioner through order dated 19.10.1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the Director. Science and Technology Department) was withdrawn, is quashed and set aside.
Cost made easy.