Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Writ petition (No.7774/2009) is directed against the Notifications dated 28.12.2002 (Ex.16) and 25.04.2008 (Ex.17). Further, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.05.2008 (Ex.18), 12.05.2008 (Ex.19), 24.06.2008 (Ex.23) and 15.06.2009 (Ex.25A). Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned notifications be struck down and the aforesaid orders be quashed and set aside.

It has also been prayed that the respondent State be directed to prepare a seniority list of R.A.S. officers in selection scale and supertime scale as per judgments passed by the High Court on 02.02.2000 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3627/1999), 16.03.1999 (D.B. Civil Review Petition No.8/1999), 19.04.2001 (D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.63/2000), 30.05.2001 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2968/2000) and 12.09.2001 (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.560/2001). Further, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondent State be directed to treat him as promotee in selection scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of the year 1991-92.

10. It is to be noted that in the meanwhile, the petitioner was given adhoc promotion to supertime scale of R.A.S., vide order dated 29.11.2005, against the year 2001-02 (Ex.14). Since then, the petitioner is continuing in supertime scale and regular extension has been granted to him.

11. Thereafter, a meeting of DPC was held for supertime scale of the years 1992-93 to 1996-97 and an order was passed on 12.05.2008 (Ex.18). The name of the petitioner was not included and he was not treated as promotee of selection scale against the year 1991-92. Another meeting of DPC was held on the same day i.e. 12.05.2008 in respect of the selection scale for the years 1986-87 to 1996-97 and an order was passed (Ex.19). In this order, the name of the petitioner appeared against the year 1993-94, in place of 1991-92. Later, an integrated seniority list of supertime and selection scale was issued on 12.05.2008 itself showing the position as on 1st of April of the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. The name of the petitioner was shown from 01.04.1994 onwards (Ex.20). The petitioner then filed objection against the said list on 26.05.2008 (Ex.21). But the said objections were rejected on 24.06.2008 (Ex.22). A final integrated seniority list, as on 1st April of the aforesaid years, was issued on 24.06.2008 (Ex.23). The position of the petitioner was maintained as was given in the provisional list, despite of his strong objections to it.

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is pre-requisite under service law that a final seniority list should be issued before the meeting of DPC is convened for the purpose of promotion to higher rank. But in the present case, the DPC for supertime scale had been held on 12.05.2008 for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97 and 1997-98 to 2007-08 (Ex.18), whereas there was no final seniority list of selection scale issued by that time. A provisional seniority list for 01.04.1993 to 01.04.1997 was itself issued on 12.05.2008 (Ex.20) which shows that there was no final seniority list of selection scale before the DPC at the time when exercise for promotion to supertime scale was done on 12.05.2008. This fact is fortified by the issuance of final seniority list on 24.06.2008 which makes it abundantly clear that the exercise of promotion done on 12.05.2008 was in absence of any final seniority list.

When a person is deprived of an accrued right vested in him under a statute or under the Constitution and he successfully challenges the same in the Court of law, the legislature cannot render the said right and the relief obtained nugatory by enacting retrospective legislation.

Therefore, the said impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondent State has to prepare a seniority list of R.A.S. officers belonging to selection scale and supertime scale as per the judgment passed by the court since 09.09.1997 upto 12.09.2001 referred to hereinabove.