Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Ninama vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:36287) on 2 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36287]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3522/2014
Zakir Khan S/o Ahmad Khan, Aged about 46 years, R/o Raj
Talab, Hussani Chowk, Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)..
2. The Director, Department of Medical and Health, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Joint Director (Administration), Department of Medical
and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.).
4. The Principal Medical Officer (P.M.O.), Mahatama Gandhi
Hospital, Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3528/2014
Ramchandra S/o Shri Laxman Bhoi, Aged about 56 years, R/o
Upla Bhoiwara, Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)..
2. The Director, Department of Medical and Health, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Joint Director (Administration), Department of Medical
and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.).
4. The Principal Medical Officer (P.M.O.), Mahatama Gandhi
Hospital, Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3529/2014
Mukesh Kumar Ninama S/o Shri Heeralal Ji Ninama, Aged about
44 years, R/o Mission Compound, Banswara, District Banswara
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
(Downloaded on 02/09/2024 at 09:01:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:36287] (2 of 4) [CW-3522/2014]
Medical and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)..
2. The Director, Department of Medical and Health, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Joint Director (Administration), Department of Medical
and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.).
4. The Principal Medical Officer (P.M.O.), Mahatama Gandhi
Hospital, Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
02/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petitions have been filed for considering the
case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Driver.
3. Since all these writ petitions are involving similar question
and are based on identical facts, therefore, the same are being
disposed of by this common order.
4. The facts of Writ Petition No.3522/2014 (Zakir Khan Vs. The
State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are taken into consideration while
deciding the present controversy.
5. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that
the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar on
compassionate ground on 02.01.1995. Since then, the petitioner
is discharging his duties to the respondent department. The
petitioner is fully eligible for the post of Driver and is holding the
requisite qualification for the same along with the driving license.
[2024:RJ-JD:36287] (3 of 4) [CW-3522/2014]
The respondent department is utilizing the services of the
petitioner on the post of Driver, however, he is not being promoted
to the post of Driver. Hence, the present writ petition has been
filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that
the petitioners are actually a substantive appointees on the post
of Class-IV, however, the respondent department is taking the
services of the petitioners on the post of Driver. He further
submits that the petitioners are discharging the work of Driver to
the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. He also submits that
the petitioners have filed representation for promotion to the post
of Driver and the same has been recommended to the higher
authorities also, but the respondents have not issued promotional
order in the case of petitioners for the post of Driver.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a
judgment of a Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Kalyan
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12921/2013), decided on 16.04.2014. He, therefore, prays
that the writ petitions may be allowed and the respondents may
be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion
on the post of Driver within a stipulated period of time.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and he submits that the petitioners are substantively
appointed on the post of Class-IV, therefore, they are entitled for
wages of the same. However, learned counsel for the respondents
is unable to dispute the fact that on certain days, the services of
the petitioners are taken for driving vehicles of the department.
[2024:RJ-JD:36287] (4 of 4) [CW-3522/2014]
He further submits that since there are limited vacancies for the
post of Driver, therefore, the case of the petitioners was not
considered for promotion. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition may be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
10. Since the petitioners are serving the respondent department
for last more than 10 years and their services are being utilized
for working on the post of Driver, therefore, it can safely be
presumed that the respondents are in dire need of Drivers for
driving their departmental vehicles. It is only in these
circumstances, the services of the petitioners are being utilized for
driving the vehicles. Thus, keeping in mind the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of
Kalyan Singh (supra), ends of justice will be met, if a direction is
given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
promotion to the post of Driver and if the petitioners qualify and
hold the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Driver,
they shall be promoted on the post as such.
11. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
76-78-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
