Chandra Shekhar Chacha vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner working as Lecturer in the Government Polytechnic College, Kota, was promoted on ad-hoc basis as Head of the Department (HOD) vide the order dated 12.03.1997 (Annex. 14), and his such promotion was extended up to 28.02.1998. Since the period of promotion to the post of HOD extended beyond one year, the requisite concurrence was sought from the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner (RPSC) as per Rule 27(2) of the Rajasthan Technical Education Service Rules, 1973.

The RPSC, however, refused its concurrence vide the communication (Annex. R/3/1) dated 22.05.1998 and on the contrary asked for an explanation from the Deputy Secretary of the Technical Education Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur that in the absence of requisite experience of ten years not being available with the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Chacha, without the concurrence of the RPSC, why even as ad-hoc promotion was given to the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any concurrence of the respondent-RPSC, ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner was not extended beyond 28.02.1998 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide the order (Annex. 16) dated 15.06.1999. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition in this Court on 01.05.2000.

The petitioner was 59 years of age in the year 2000 and by now, on achieving the age of superannuation, has retired from the services.

Mr. Hemant Shrimali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that in fact the petitioner was working on the post of Lecturer, the substantive post held by him right from 1983 and, therefore, the experience could not be counted only from the year 1989-90 on the basis of which he was said to be not possessing the requisite experience of ten years and the concurrence of the RPSC was thus wrongly refused by the Commission vide the communication (Annex. R/3/1) dated 22.05.1998. He, therefore, submitted that in view of a recurring cause of action to the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be heard and decided on merits.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC, Mr. Tarun Joshi, urged that in the absence of requisite experience, the extension of ad-hoc promotion for a period more than one year could not be granted to the petitioner, without the concurrence of the RPSC in view of Rule 27(2) of the relevant Rules and that is why rightly an explanation was sought from the Dy. Secretary under the communication dated 22.05.1998 (Annex. R/3/1). He also submitted that in view of the fact upon achieving the age of superannuation, the petitioner has been since now retired from the services, therefore, there is no question of restoring him back as HOD at this stage. He also urged that vide the communication (Annex. 16) dated 15.06.1999, even does not amount to the reversion of the petitioner back to the substantive post of Lecturer held by him as the promotion to the post of HOD was on purely ad-hoc basis and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as infructuous.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition does not survive as it has become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner having achieved the age of superannuation, has now been retired from the services. There is no occasion to decide the academic question as to the period for which the experience is to be counted in the present case as no such case was put forth by the petitioner before the respondents before approaching this Court and, therefore, the respondents had no occasion to deal with the said issue now sought to be raised before this Court as to whether the experience period should be counted from 1983 or from 1989-90. On such hypothetical questions raised before this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition.

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.