Devi Lal Soni vs State of Rajasthan and Others

P.K. Lohra, J.—The petitioner has laid this writ petition by way of invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the impugned order dt. 07.03.2011 (Annex. 10) passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur. Being aggrieved from the omissions and commissions of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner as LDC on the strength of circular issued by the Industries and Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan dt. 30.10.1973 (Annex. 1), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal. In the memo of appeal, it was inter-alia alleged by the petitioner that at the threshold of his service career, he was appointed as Nakedar on 01.04.1969 and therefore his case is liable to be considered for absorption as LDC on the strength of conditions laid down in Circular Annex. 1. While contesting the appeal on behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the four corners of the circulars issued by the State Government i.e. Annex. 1 & 2 respectively, and as such he is not entitled for any relief. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions, rejected the appeal.

Assailing the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, Mr. Parmendra Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has misconstrued the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on some of the decisions of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4718/2008 (Ram Gopal Chouhan vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on February 6, 2009) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9480/2009 (Shanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 28.04.2011). Substantiating his argument on the basis of these legal precedents, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Mr. R.K. Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has strenuously urged that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the four corners of circulars Annex. 1 & 2 respectively. According to Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the respondents, the learned Tribunal has examined the matter in entirety and has rightly declined the reliefs to the petitioner. Mr. Soni has further urged that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.

The legal position is no more res-integra that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly with great care and circumspection. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, is required to examine as to whether lower Court or the Tribunal has acted within the four corners of its jurisdiction and has adhered to the prescribed procedure or not. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal while examining the afflictions of the petitioner, has taken note of Para 5 of Circular dt. 30.10.1973 (Annex. 1) as well as recitals of Circular Annex. 2. Taking into account the purport of the circular, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for his absorption as LDC because on the crucial date i.e. 01.11.1973 he has not put in five years'' services on the post of Nakedar. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no infirmity, much less legal infirmity in the impugned order and the same calls for no interference. Resultantly, the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.