Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Shailendra Kumar Son Of Shri Swarn Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2022

Author: Inderjeet Singh

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17382/2019

Shailendra Kumar Son Of Shri Swarn Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Village Morda, Post Samraya, Tehsil Weir,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary
        (Admn.)-Ii, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt.
        Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.      Chief      Engineer     (Admn.),         Public      Health    Engineering
        Department, Jal Bhawan-2, Civil Line, Jaipur-302006.
3.      Superintendent         Engineer,        Public      Health     Engineering
        Department, Circle, Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
                                 Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora
                                 Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Imran Khan, Addl.G.C.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                      Order

05/05/2022

      Heard on the application.

      Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of "Vimla Devi Saini

Vs.   State   of    Rajasthan       &    Ors."      [S.B.     Civil   Writ   Petition

No.7330/2016] decided on 20.11.2017, which reads as under:-

      "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
      controversy raised in the instant writ application
      stands resolved in view of the adjudication made
      by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal

                      (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM)
                                  (2 of 6)                [CW-17382/2019]


Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of Charu Joshi Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 419/2015, decided
on 22nd January, 2016, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the
Staterespondents observing thus:
     "5. I have heard learned counsel for the
     parties and have considered the facts of
     the case.
     6. Rule 6 (1A) of the Rules of 1967 reads
     as under:-
         "6. Methods of Recruitment:-
         Recruitment to the Service after
         the commencement of these
         rules shall be made by the
         following methods in the (D.B.
         SAW/877/2019 has been filed in
         this matter. Please refer the
         same       for    further     orders)
         proportion as indicated in column
         3 of the schedule-
         (a)     direct     recruitment      in
         accordance with part IV of these
         rules, and
         (b) Promotion (in accordance with
         Part V) of these rules):Provided-
         (1) that if the Appointing
         Authority      is     satisfied     in
         consultation          with        the
         Commission, where necessary,
         that suitable persons are not
         available for appointment by
         either method of recruitment in a
         particular year, appointment by
         the other method in relaxation of
         the prescribed proportion may be
         made in the same manner as
         specified in these rules; (1A) If a
         Diploma Holder Junior Engineer
         attains the qualifications of B.E.
         (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical),      or
         AMIE, he shall be entitled on his
         application     and     subject     to
         availability of vacancy, to be
         appointed as direct recruitment
         but in that case his seniority
         amongst             the         Junior

             (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM)
                             (3 of 6)                [CW-17382/2019]


    Engineers(Degree Holders) shall
    be determined from the date of
    occurrence of vacancy against
    which such Junior Engineer has
    been appointed on the post of
    Junior Engineer (Degree Holder)
    and one third of his previous
    experience shall be counted as
    experience on the post of Junior
    Engineer for the purpose of
    promotion to the next higher
    post."
    A reading of the aforesaid rule
    shows that a person who is Junior
    Engineer(Diploma Holder) attains
    the qualification of B.E. (Civil,
    Mechanical, Electrical or A.M.I.E.)
    shall   be     entitled,  on    an
    application, to be appointed as
    Junior Engineer(Degree Holder)
    by transfer against the quota of
    direct recruitment, but his case
    for seniority amongst the Junior
    Engineer(Degree Holder) shall be
    determined from the date of
    occurrence of vacancy with a
    further rider that 1/3rd of his
    previous experience shall be
    counted as experience on the
    post of Junior Engineer for the
    purpose of promotion to the next
    post.
7. This rule can be broken up into two
segments, first being that if Junior
Engineer     (Diploma     Holder)   attains
additional qualification, namely, B.E.
(Civil, Mechanical, Electrical or A.M.I.E.),
he can move an application to be
appointed as Junior Engineer(Degree
Holder) by way of transfer against the
quota meant for direct recruitment of
Degree Holders, but this would only be
subject to availability of vacancy. The
second limb of the rule pertains to, how
the seniority is to be determined.



        (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM)
                             (4 of 6)                [CW-17382/2019]


8. Admittedly, the petitioner was Diploma
Holder in Civil (D.B. SAW/877/2019 has
been filed in this matter. Please refer the
same for further orders) Engineering on
the date of submission of his application
form, i.e. 30.6.2008. The interview was
held on 23.5.2009 and appointment was
offered on 17.9.2009. The additional
qualification of A.M.I.E. was acquired
subsequent to the date of submission of
application. Rule 6(1A) clearly specified
that a Junior Engineer (Diploma Holder)
who attains qualification of A.M.I.E. shall
be entitled to be appointed as Junior
Engineer (Degree Holder) by transfer
against the quota of direct recruitment
only on availability of vacancy. Reading of
rule does not show that a only such
Junior Engineer (Diploma Holder), can be
considered for transfer to the quota of
direct recruitment of Degree Holders if he
has obtained degree while in service and
after obtaining permission from the
Department. Rule is silent to that effect
and it certainly cannot be construed
otherwise.
9. In the present case, the petitioner on
the date of application was only had the
qualification of Diploma Holder, even
though he was undergoing A.M.I.E.
Course and was in the final year. If the
petitioner had applied, there was no
guarantee that he would have qualified .
The only surety, in his hands, was that he
was a Diploma Holder and had a
reasonable      opportunity     of    being
appointed as Junior Engineer(Diploma
Holder). In case, he did not qualify in the
degree course, he would have lost the
opportunity under the Diploma quota as
well. Rule 6(1A) only specifies that in
case a Junior Engineer(Diploma Holder)
attained qualification, he shall be entitled
to      be     appointed      as      Junior
Engineer(Degree Holder) by way of
transfer against the quota of direct

        (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM)
                                        (5 of 6)                [CW-17382/2019]


         recruitment only on availability of a
         vacancy.     Nonconsideration      of    his
         candidatures was on the ground that he
         did not apply in the advertisement under
         the Degree Holder quota and especially
         since he was already undergoing the
         third/final year examination is not
         tenable in view of the fact that the
         petitioner would be entitled to transfer
         only in case there is a vacancy and then
         of course the seniority would be reckoned
         as per rules.
         10. In view of the above, the above noted
         writ petition is allowed with the direction
         to the respondent to consider the case of
         the petitioner for transfer in the quota of
         direct      recruitment       of      Junior
         Engineer(Degree Holder) by way of
         transfer in case there is a vacancy and to
         compute his seniority according to the
         Rules.
    "Learned counsel further submits that instant writ
    application (D.B. SAW/877/2019 has been filed in
    this matter. Please refer the same for further
    orders) be also disposed of in terms of the order in
    the case of Charu Joshi (supra).
    In view of the statement made, the instant writ
    application stands disposed off in terms of the
    order in the case of Charu Joshi (supra) as
    extracted hereinabove.
    The application (IA No.66480/2017) stands
    closed."

     Counsel for the petitoner submits that the respondent-state

of Rajasthan filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).

No.26449/2020, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 02.03.2021, which reads as under:-

     "We see no ground to interfere with the orders
     passed by the High Court. The Special leave
     Petitioners are dismissed. However, the question of
     law is left open."

     Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.



                   (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM)
                                                                            (6 of 6)                [CW-17382/2019]



                                         Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not

                                   disputed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands disposed of in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vimla Devi Saini (supra).

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /8 (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)