1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1467/2007 Anandi Lal Jain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 20.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. ... Under the Rajasthan Prosecution Service Rules, 1978 an Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr. I is having an avenue for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Prosecution). The petitioner late Sh. Anandi Lal Jain (now represented by his legal representatives) was not considered for promotion to the post aforesaid being suffered with a minor punishment that is of censure. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Prosecution) is merit and seniority cum merit with the ratio of 1:1, and by the order dated 16.1.2007 the respondents made promotions of at least 12 persons junior than the petitioner as Assistant Director, ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the penalty of censure can not be an adequate reason for not considering candidature of a person for promotion where the criteria required to be 2 applied is of seniority-cum-merit. In the instant matter at least nine vacancies against the year 2006-07 were to be filled in as per the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and candidature of the petitioner should have been considered against those vacancies. This Court in Satyamani Tiwari Vs. State & Ors.(SBCivil Writ Petition No.2878/2003) decided on 11.8.2006 held as follows: “ While doing so the committee must keep in mind that under the criteria of seniority-cum-merit it is the seniority that will prevail as the term “merit” under the criteria concerned means the minimum merit necessary for efficiency of administration. From perusal of the record it appears that no such exercise was done while rejecting candidature of the petitioner for promotion to Rajasthan Police Service.” In the instant matter the criteria for promotion is admittedly seniority-cum-merit, and therefore, the candidature of late Sh. Anandi Lal Jain should have been considered by the respondents for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Prosecution) against the vacancies of the year 2006-07, in view of the law discussed by this Court in the case of Satyamani Tiwari (supra). Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of late Sh. Anandi Lal Jain for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Prosecution) against the 3 vacancies of year 2006-07 in accordance with law. In the event late Sh. Anandi Lal Jain is otherwise found suitable for promotion, appropriate order be made in that regard. The consequential benefits, whatever, arising out of that be given to his legal representatives. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal