Heera Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The prayer in the present petition is to convene a review DPC for considering the case of the petitioner against the vacancies of the years 1992-93 to 1996-97 on the post of Lecturer (School Education) and to grant him the benefit when the persons junior to him had been granted appointment/promotion on the post of Lecturer (School Education) against the vacancies of year 1992-93 to 1996-97.

The petitioner was selected as a Teacher Grade-II under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 against the vacant post on probation period of two years vide order dated 23.10.1986 and he was directed to join the services upto 12.11.1986. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (School Education) under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971. This appointment was made on urgent temporary basis for a period of one year or till the regularly selected candidates are made available by the DPC/Public Service Commission. As the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualifications for appointment as School Lecturer, the appointment was made to the petitioner vide order dated 23.3.1987.

The persons who had been appointed along with the present petitioner as teacher Gr.II in the year 1986 and thereafter, appointed as Lecturer (School Education) on urgent temporary basis under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 were considered as regularly selected candidates and this selection was made by the DPC against the vacancies of 1992-93 to 1996-97 but the petitioner was left out erroneously. The petitioner accordingly made representation to the respondents. The respondents informed him vide their communication dated 11.02.2014 that DPC of the Lecturer (School Education) for the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 was convened in the year 1995-96 but at that point of time, in the seniority list, the qualification of the petitioner M.Sc. (Physics) was not mentioned and this qualification was made only on 20.02.2004 and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was considered in the year 2005 against the vacancies of year 1997-98 by the DPC and against the said vacancies, the petitioner was selected.

It is contended that the qualification M.Sc. was duly mentioned in the service record as well as in his initial appointment order. Thus, he cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his. Hence, his case deserves to be considered against the vacancies for the year 1992-93.

Reply has been filed. In the reply, it is not denied that the reason why the petitioner was not included in the seniority list for the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 for promotion on the post of Lecturer School Education (Physics) as the qualification of M.Sc. Physics was not mentioned against his name and it was in the year 2004 that the name of the petitioner was included in the Division Level Seniority List and vide order dated 20.02.2004, he was granted promotion on the said post against the DPC of 1997-98.

Thus, the facts are not disputed.

The only objection raised is that the petitioner cannot raise his grievance after a lapse of 16 years for promotion against the vacancies for the year 1992-93 to 1996-97.

Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for promotion against the vacancies for the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 but was denied on account of the lapse on the part of the respondents in not mentioning the qualification of M.Sc. Physics against his name. Moreover, the respondents themselves granted him seniority against the vacancies of 1997-98 in the DPC which was convened in the year 2005. The petitioner and all those who were selected along with the petitioner are as on date working against the post of School Lecturer. The cause of action has arisen only now when the DPC for the next promotion to the post of Headmaster is likely to take place any time.

Presently, the petitioner as well as all those who were considered against the vacancies of 1992-93 to 1996-97 are working on the post of Lecturer and it would be highly unjust and unfair if the petitioner is not considered for the next promotion along with all those persons who were appointed along with him in spite of the fact that the petitioner too, was equally qualified and eligible and should have been considered against the vacancies of the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 but was left out without any fault of his. Moreover, when the DPC was convened in the year 2005, respondents considered the petitioner against the vacancies of 1997-98 and at that time, they knew that the petitioner had been wrongly ignored for the vacancies of 1992-93 to 1996-97. Thus, the error could have been rectified at that point of time itself by considering him for the vacancies of 1992-93 to 1996-97.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to convene the review DPC and consider him against the vacancies of 1992-93 to 1996-97. The exercise be completed within two months or before the DPC for the next promotion, whichever is earlier.