Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He further submitted that the employee has only right of consideration of promotion and even if wrongful promotion has been given the State has every authority to refix the year of promotion. He further submits that there is no allegation made by the petitioners with regard to malafide on the part of the officers of the State Government. He further submits that in view of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1976) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction for creating the shadow posts. He further submits that all the promotional activities has been done by the respondents in view of the relevant rules of Department for promotion, more particularly while making the promotion they have duly followed Rule 10, 27, 29 & 31 of the Rajasthan Police (4 of 43) [CW-5926/2022] Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1989). He further submits that event the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State Government for creation of shadow posts. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments.

17. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of some of the employees have also filed writ petitions directly before this Court being CWP-13746/2018, 18671/2018, 24498/2018, 11515/2022 & 12360/2022 with regard to their non-promotion and non-
determination of year-wise vacancies.
18. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad appearing on behalf of the employees as well as appearing as counsels for the petitioners in the connected matters along with Mr. Vigyan Shah and Mr. Shobhit Tiwari submitted that the Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding with regard to wrongful calculation of year wise vacancies, based on the Rule as well as vacancy chart submitted on behalf of the State of Rajasthan before the Tribunal and rightly directed for conducting a review promotional exercise for creation of shadow posts based on the judgment of the Tribunal with regard to those who have already promoted in excess. They further submitted that it is the duty of the State Government to follow the Rules for promotion more particularly Rule 10(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Rules of 1989. They further relied upon the Rule 27, 29 & 31 of the Rules of 1989. They further submitted that for promotional exercise the department has to determine year wise vacancy as on 1st April of every year and the department (16 of 43) [CW-5926/2022] has to further hold the promotional activities as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 and conduct the qualifying examination as prescribed under Rule 29 and thereafter the substantive promotion in the service shall be given by the department as per the approved list. They further submitted that if the State Government does not want to revert the persons who have wrongfully given promotion due to wrong calculation of vacancies then in view of Rule 18 there is power vests with the State Government to create supernumerary posts to make compliance of the judgment passed by any court or to correct the factual errors. They further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly given the directions for creation of shadow posts in view of Rule 18 of Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred as 'RSR') and that was admitted position before the Tribunal with regard to the wrongful calculation of the vacancies. They further submitted that the State Government be directed to re-do the promotional exercise and promote them in the year in which they found place.
10. In our view, the facts of the present case are clearly covered under the two judgments referred to and relied upon by Mr Rai. The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was a time-bound promotion which was given to him and some eleven years thereafter, the authorities of the Bihar Government woke up and according to them the time-bound promotion was wrongly given and that the relevant rules are being relied upon and that too after the appellant had passed the required examination."

41. Learned Advocate General opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners and further submits that the respondents have duly conducted the promotional activities in view of Rules of 1989 and if they have committed any mistake in calculating the year wise vacancies, as pointed out by them in the additional affidavit filed before this Court on 16.04.2022, the State Government have every right to rectify their mistake by changing the year of promotion if any employee is given wrongly promotion in respective years. He further submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed and the State Government be given liberty to rectify their mistake.