SBCWP NO.4828/1999. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4828/1999. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Raj.Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Date of Order :- 30/6/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri AS Khangarot, Dy.Govt. Counsel for State. **** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2) This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur whereby, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of respondent No.2 for promotion and grant him the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors Indrabadan and Bachhraj were given promotion. These two persons were admittedly junior to the respondent No.2 and were extended the benefit of promotion by revising of the promotion list in September, 1990. Feeling aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2 preferred appeal which has since been allowed by the impugned SBCWP NO.4828/1999. 2 judgment. 3) Only ground that has been raised by the petitioners in support of the this writ petition is that respondent No.2 was assigned promotion in the quota of year 1990. Since he was earlier not a confirmed UDC, he was not entitled to get any benefit of promotion from the date his juniors were granted such promotion. Additionally, it has been submitted that appeal preferred before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. 4) On consideration of this argument, it is revealed the basic fact that respondent No.2 was denied promotion in preference to his two juniors for the mere fact that he was confirmed at later point of time then those juniors as UDC. But the fact that respondent No.2 was confirmed and was senior to them in the same cadre is not in dispute. The promotion order issued in September, 1990 was challenged by respondent No.2 in 1991. The petitioners have not indicated as to how and in what manner the appeal was barred and if so, by how many days. In my view, when the Tribunal has decided the issue on merits, this argument in any case is liable to be dismissed. 5) The judgment of the Tribunal, in my considered view, does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is SBCWP NO.4828/1999. 3 accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil