Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimlesh Vyas vs State And Ors on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9826/2016
Vimlesh Vyas S/o Devraj Vyas, R/o C-15, 76/53, Behind Olymic
Cinema, Government Quarter, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Animal
Husbandry, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Department, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi, GC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/05/2022
The brief facts of the case are as under: -
The petitioner was appointed as 'Sayis' in the respondent
department on 31.08.1984. Vide order dated 04.09.1989, he was
sent for training for Live Stock Assistant in terms of the Rules.
Vide order dated 22.10.1994, he was promoted as Lab Attendant.
Vide order dated 26.04.2002, all the employees working as Sayis,
Jaldhari and Sweeper with the department were absorbed as Lab
Attendant and the petitioner was also one of them.
It has been submitted in the writ petition that in the year
2008, an amendment was introduced in the Rules vide which it
was decided that all the vacancies of Live Stock Assistant would be
filed by direct recruitment. The earlier provision was that 25% of
seats of Live Stock Assistant would be filled by promotion and
(2 of 4) [CW-9826/2016]
75% by way of direct recruitment. Against the said amendment,
a writ petition was preferred by many of the employees, the
petitioner being one of them. The said writ petition was allowed
vide order dated 30.04.2015 and it was held that the amendment
cannot be made effective with a retrospective effect. Meaning
thereby it was directed that 25% of the seats of Live Stock
Assistant would be filled up by promotion only. The petitioner
therefore prayed that he be promoted as Live Stock Assistant but
the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
29.04.2016 on the premise that as he had not earlier been
promoted as a Dresser (Lab Attendant), he cannot be promoted
directly as Live Stock Assistant. Against the said rejection the
present writ petition has been preferred.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 is factually incorrect as the
petitioner was very much promoted as Lab Attendant and was
working as such since the year 1994. In support of her submission
she relied upon the experience certificate placed on record which
shows that the petitioner had been working as a Lab Attendant
since 22.10.1994. She also placed on record the seniority list
dated 03.05.2002 wherein the date of joining of the petitioner on
the post of Dresser (Lab Attendant) is shown to be 03.10.1994
and the year of getting training for the purpose of Live Stock
Assistant is shown to be the year 1991-92.
Counsel for the respondents on the contrary submitted that
it is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab
Attendant in the year 1994 but he submitted that the same was
on deputation and not a regular promotion. He therefore
(3 of 4) [CW-9826/2016]
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion as Live
Stock Assistant.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
A perusal of the order dated 22.10.1994 makes it crystal
clear that the petitioner was promoted as Lab Attendant. The said
order nowhere terms the said promotion to be a deputation or on
temporary basis. It is also clear from the experience certificate
issued by the competent authority as well as the seniority list
placed on record that the petitioner was promoted as a Lab
Attendant on 22.10.1994 and is since then working on the said
post. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the order dated
29.04.2016 is factually as well as legally incorrect.
It is relevant the note that a controversy regarding the
promotions in the respondent department from the post of
Jaldhari, Sayis and Sweeper arose earlier too and was decided in
the matter of SBCWP No.1378/1992; Rajasthan Sahayak
Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (decided on
29.04.2002). Vide the said judgment, it was specifically held that
the members of the petitioner-Union therein, holding the post of
Jaldhari, Sayis and Sweeper are mandatorily to be accorded
promotion according to their qualifications and experience. It is an
admitted case here that the petitioner was appointed as Sayis with
the department. Therefore, in terms of the said judgment also the
petitioner is entitled for promotion.
In view of the above observation it is clear that the petitioner
was promoted as a Lab Attendant in the year 1994 and therefore,
now deserves to be promoted as Live Stock Assistant in terms of
the applicable provisions of law.
(4 of 4) [CW-9826/2016]
The writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondents are
directed to accord promotion to the petitioner on the post of Live
Stock Assistant from the date the person junior to him was
granted promotion. All the consequential benefits would follow.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the present order.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
91-Dharmendra/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
