Pralad Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7497 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3913/2021

1. Pralad Ram S/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Raikon Ki Dhani, Kagau, Barmer-344001

2. Praveen Singh S/o Mag Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Bhatiyo Ki Dhani, Vidhasar, Barmer Gramin, Barmer 344001

3. Manohar Lal Bairwa S/o Heera Lal Bairwa, Aged About 26 Years, Village Guda, Sampatpura, Post Kallwas, Tehsil Ramgarh, Pachwara, (Lalsot) District Dausa, 303505

4. Rahul Gaur S/o Trilok Nath Gaur, Aged About 22 Years, Reendli Tata Ka Baas, Mandawar, Mahwa Road, Dausa, 321609

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Through The Managing Director, Registered Office Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005

3. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office D - Block, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021

4. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

5. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Makarwali Rd, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305004

6. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, New Power House, Industrial Area, Jodhpur, 342003.

                                                                   ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary




                                            (2 of 4)               [CW-3913/2021]


For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate with
                                 Mr. Vipul Dharnia



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

17/03/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners-diploma

holders, have approached this Court with a grievance that the

respondents-Electricity Companies (hereinafter referred to as 'the

respondents-Nigams') have been issuing advertisements and

making recruitment only for Junior Engineer-I and no recruitment

is being made qua Junior Engineer-II.

2. Inviting Court's attention towards Annexs.2 and 3, Mr.

Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed

out that there are two cadres of Junior Engineers, viz., Junior

Engineer-I and Junior Engineer-II. So far as Junior Engineer-I is

concerned, the requisite educational qualification as prescribed

under the rules/regulations is Degree in Engineering (Electrical),

whereas for the post of Junior Engineer-II, the requisite

educational qualification is Diploma in Engineering (Electrical).

3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the relevant Rules and

even in the draft Regulations, two separate posts/cadres have

been shown, viz., Junior Engineer-I and Junior Engineer-II, but

since 2011, the respondents have not issued any recruitment

notification for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer-II, though in

the provisions relating to promotion, it has been stipulated that

candidates from Junior Engineer-I and Junior Engineer-II shall be

considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, on the

basis of their proportionate strength in the Nigams.

(3 of 4) [CW-3913/2021]

4. Mr. Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondents-Nigams at the outset pointed out that the

respondents have formulated the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parsaran

Nigam Limited Engineers' Service Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Regulations of 2016'), whereby the post of

Junior Engineer-II has been declared to be a dying cadre.

5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that since the post of Junior

Engineer-II has been declared as dying cadre in the Regulations of

2016, there cannot be a question of further recruitment in such

cadre and hence, the post of Junior Engineer-II has rightly not

been advertized by the respondents-Nigams after 2011.

6. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

argued that the respondents are not justified in declaring the

post/cadre of Junior Engineer-II as a dying cadre and no order or

document fortifying the aforesaid factum has been placed on

record by the respondents-Nigam.

7. In considered opinion of this Court, since the Regulations of

2016 clearly stipulates that cadre of Junior Engineer-II shall be a

dying cadre, no separate order is required to be placed on record.

It is the settled proposition of law that keeping a post alive or

treating the same to be in dying cadre is a discretion of the

employer.

8. That apart, provisions of Regulations have not been

challenged in the present writ petition.

9. This Court does not find any substance in the present writ

petition, for which it is hereby dismissed.

10. Needless to observe that dismissal of the present writ

petition will not come in way of the petitioners, if they wish to

challenge the validity of Regulations of 2016.

(4 of 4) [CW-3913/2021]

11. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 43-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)