SBCWP3546/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3546/1997 Sharat Chandra Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 10.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rajeev Bandhu, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hari Bareth, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition was filed by petitioner way back in the year 1997 with prayer that respondents be directed to declare the result of review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which was convened on 06.11.1995, and give effect to the same in view of judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1699/1991, decided on 05.05.1992. It has been further prayed that respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1981-82 and accordingly accord him all SBCWP3546/1997 // 2 // consequential benefits including consideration of his case for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1997-98. Shri Rajeev Bandhu, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Engineering Subordinate with the Department of the respondent State on 27.11.1968. The post of Engineering Subordinate was later re-designated as Junior Engineer. When the petitioner passed qualification of Associate Member of Institute of Engineers (AMIE), he was confirmed on the post of Engineering Subordinate/Junior Engineer with effect from 01.09.1980. The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer because he had by that time acquired much experience of working on the post of Junior Engineer. He was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer belatedly and that too on urgent temporary basis in the year 1995 and he was eventually promoted on regular basis on the post of Assistant Engineer on recommendations of DPC against the vacancies of the year 1997- 98. It is contended that a writ petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.837/1983, SBCWP3546/1997 // 3 // titled - G.C. Mathur Vs. The State of Rajasthan, came to be filed before this Court which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.11.1988, wherein the experience of working as Junior Engineer/ Engineering Subordinate gained prior to acquiring the degree qualification, was held to be good for the purpose of eligibility, in view of the Note inserted by amendment Notification dated 05.04.1976 in Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954. The Division Bench held that there is no difference in the quality and nature of work experience gained before acquiring degree and thereafter, it cannot be interpreted that three years experience as Junior Engineer should only mean such experience acquired after degree because the Note itself saves this situation. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Division Bench on that basis directed consideration of case of Shri G.C. Mathur, petitioner therein, against the vacancies of the year 1975 though he filed the Writ Petition in the year 1983. Similarly the writ petition of Dharam Vir filed in the year 1991 was allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion against any SBCWP3546/1997 // 4 // vacancy that would be available after 1978. Shri Hari Bareth, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that cause of action for raising grievance arose to petitioner in the year 1980-81 against the vacancies of which year the petitioner is claiming promotion. The writ petition has been belatedly filed in the year 1997, and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel submitted that only such experience which the petitioner gained after acquiring degree would be counted for the purpose of promotion and that since the petitioner acquired degree on 29.08.1979 he was liable to be placed below the degree holder Junior Engineers up-to that date. The petitioner has not given any example or instance of any Degree Holder Junior Engineer, who may be junior to him and was promoted, therefore, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the Division Bench of this Court in G.C. Mathur's case (Supra), has interpreted the note in Column No.5 of Schedule appended to the SBCWP3546/1997 // 5 // Rules of 1954 against the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). It was held by the Division Bench as under:- “So far as 1977/1978 are concerned the petitioner's case is that in view of the note inserted by the amendment dated 5.4.76, it is not necessary that three years experience must be there after possessing the degree. Petitioner's argument is that there is no difference in the nature and quality of the experience gained by a diploma holder and that of degree holder. Diploma holders are called Engineering subordinates or Sub Engineers and degree holders are called Junior Engineers but there is no difference in the nature of duties, functionally they are discharging same functions and duties and they are also interchangeable and inter transferable. In this view of the matter the following note inserted on 5.4.76 make it clear that experience gained prior to degree is as good as the experience gained thereafter and the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of the year 1977. Note is reproduced as under:- “Note:- Prior to the date the cadre of Junior Engineers has been separated as Sub Engineers and Junior Engineers, the service as Engineering Subordinates or Junior Engineers shall count as experience or service in view of Rule 28 as hithertofore.” The ratio of the aforesaid judgment was then reiterated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dharam Vir's case (Supra) to say that petitioner's case was to be considered because even the experience gained by him prior to acquiring degree would hold valid for the purpose of eligibility of promotion. The SBCWP3546/1997 // 6 // petitioner has categorically stated in Para 4 of the writ petition that the Chief Engineer, after scrutinizing the matter, wrote a letter dated 07.07.1993 to the Secretary, Public Works Department, for reconsideration of the promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) through the review DPC for the year 1980-81. It was clearly mentioned that in view of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir's case (Supra), the claim of petitioner was to be considered against the vacancies of the year 1980-81, he being the appointee of the year 1968. The respondents, in reply to the writ petition, have not denied the fact about the letter of the Chief Engineer. The petitioner is thus justified in raising his grievance in this writ petition filed in the year 1997 because not only the review DPC was actually held after approval from the Department of Personnel but its result appears to have been withheld. However, the result was withheld because the Finance Department of the Government declined to sanction supernumerary post. If otherwise the petitioner made out a case that he was entitled to be considered at par with G.C. Mathur's case and Dharam Vir's case (Supra) by treating him eligible for promotion regardless SBCWP3546/1997 // 7 // of the fact that experience was of the time prior to acquisition of Degree or thereafter, the fact that he was not considered against the vacancies of the year 1980-81 only because according to perception of respondents such experience was of the time after the acquisition of the Degree, clearly brought the case of the petitioner within the purview of the case of G.C. Mathur and Dharam Vir (Supra). Since in those two cases also the writ petitions were entertained after lapse of some time and since the Chief Engineer in the present case had forwarded the case of the petitioner in the year 1993 and review DPC was actually held by the respondents on 06.11.1995 for which the concurrence was withheld by the Finance Department some time in June, 1996, filing of the writ petition in the year 1997, cannot be, by any stretch of argument, said to suffer from delay and laches. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give effect to recommendations of the review DPC in so far as the case of petitioner is concerned, and grant him all consequential benefits including consideration of his case for higher post of Executive Engineer against the SBCWP3546/1997 // 8 // vacancies against which his immediate junior was so promoted. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Compliance of this judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//