1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1560/94 State of Rajasthan vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Date of order : 11/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgement of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 23.9.1993 by which the Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1988-89 by including their name in the review and revision list and further that if his name is found suitable by the DPC, it was directed that review DPC be convened for that purpose and in case their names are included in the review and revision list, they can be promoted on the post of Executive Engineer from the date their juniors were promoted on officiating basis and should be continued on notional promotion till their juniors were demoted thereafter or till they were 2 selected by the review DPC. Challenge to the aforesaid judgement has been made on two grounds. One is that the respondent was not eligible for promotion when the DPC was conveyed for considering the cases for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1988-89. On that date he did not acquire the experience of 15 years on the basis of substantive appointment in terms of Rule 4(h) of the Rajasthan Engineering Service (Irrigation Branch), Rules, 1954. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent was not eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1988-89 because he was awarded punishment of stoppage of one grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 21.1.1988. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgement passed by the Tribunal, I find that the respondent was able to prove before the Tribunal that the promotion were granted to some of his juniors though on review / revision list against the quota of the year 1988-89. The 3 Tribunal found that the respondent nos.11 to 20 so promoted were junior to the respondent. It is not explained as to if juniors were considered why the respondent who was senior could be denied such consideration. According to the petitioner, since the respondent was a decree holder and was assigned promotion quota of 1974, he could not be considered eligible for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1988-89. The Tribunal found that the promotion in question was granted to many of the juniors of the respondent on officiating basis and when the juniors have been considered against the review and revision list and were promoted on officiating basis till the recommendations of the DPC of 1989- 90, were implemented, the respondents should also be promoted from the date his junior was promoted on officiating basis by the impugned order. It was come out before the Tribunal that though the amendment in Rule 4 (h) with regard to definition of experience was made by notification of the government dated 29.8.1982 but this amendment came into force with effect from 31.12.1988 and thus 4 if the experience of the respondent was counted from the date of his initial joining he would have completed the requisite period of experience as on 1.4.1988. Even otherwise, when several of the juniors were treated as eligible, there was no question of treating him ineligible. The Tribunal decided two identical appeals by the impugned order and noticed the fact that one of the appellants before the Tribunal stood retired and the other one was due to retire shortly. Learned counsel has come out with the plea that since there was no interim order passed by this Court, the respondents subsequently approached the Tribunal by filing the contempt petition where the Tribunal was satisfied that the compliance of the judgement was made and therefore by its order dated 20.5.1995 dismissed the contempt petition. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/