CW 3124/96 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3124/1996 Panchulal Sablaniya Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 27/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajiv Bandhu, for petitioner Mr. SD Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents Petitioner while being Class IV employee was promoted as Lower Division Clerk vide order dt.05/02/81 (Ann.1) against 15% quota reserved for members of Class IV service U/r 7(3) of Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (“Rules, 1957”) and later on as Upper Division Clerk vide order dt.17/10/90 (Ann.4) and confirmed as UDC w.e.f. 17/09/91 vide order dt.10/10/91 (Ann.6). But, vide order dt.10/12/92 (Ann.7) Class IV employees having been promoted to the LDC cadre were revised and petitioner was promoted against vacancy year of 1983-84 on the recommendations of departmental promotion committee (“DPC”), having been reiterated vide order dt.12/07/93 (Ann.9) redrawing seniority as well. Similarly vide order dt.03/01/96 (Ann.12), petitioner was shown to have been promoted as UDC against vacancy year-1993-94. Grievance of petitioner raised herein CW 3124/96 //2// is that before assigning vacancy year 1983-84 in the cadre of LDC, no opportunity was afforded to him and such action is in violation of principles of natural justice since seniority in the cadre of LDC and so also on promotional post of UDC vide orders dt.12/07/93 and 03/01/96 (Ann.12) respectively were assigned as a consequence of seniority of the cadre of LDC. In the reply, respondents inter-alia averred that petitioner was initially appointed as Class IV employee on 04/04/1977 and 15% quota of total number of vacancies of LDC determined U/r 9 of Rules, 1957 was reserved for Class IV employee for promotion to the post of LDC , for which U/r 7(3) only such class IV employees are eligible having put in five years' service in the department concerned, apart from possessing academic qualification prescribed under service Rules for the post of LDC. Since petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 04/04/1977 and while being promoted as LDC on adhoc basis vide order dt.05/02/81 (Ann.1), indisputably he had not put in five years service as Class IV employee, which was one of pre-requisite conditions to have become eligible for CW 3124/96 //3// consideration to promotional post of LDC. Taking note whereof and keeping in view his eligibility in the cadre of LDC, review DPC finally recommended for promoting him against vacancy year 1983-84 vide order dt.12/07/93 (Ann.9) – on the basis whereof, after considering seniority assigned in the cadre of LDC, further recommended for promotion in the cadre of UDC against vacancy year of 1993-94 vide order dt.03/01/96 (Ann.12). R.7(3) of Rules, 1957 clearly contemplates that 15% of number of vacancies of LDC determined U/r 9, should be reserved for Class IV employees being members of Rules, 1963 if having put in five years' service and possessing academic qualification prescribed for the post of LDC under Rules. Petitioner was indisputably appointed on 04/04/1977 in the cadre of Class IV and has certainly not completed five years service while he was given ad hoc promotion to the post of LDC initially as asserted by him vide order dt.05/02/81 (Ann.1) or confirmed vide order dt.17/02/84 (Ann.2) when he was not eligible for being considered to the post of LDC on account of having not put in five years service which is a pre-requisite condition for CW 3124/96 //4// an incumbent to become eligible for being considered against 15% reserved quota in terms of R.7(3) of Rules, 19057. It is also not the case of petitioner that any person junior to him in the cadre of Class IV was either promoted prior to him or assigned earlier year quota than what has been finally recommended by DPC of vacancy year 1983-84 in his favour as is evident from order dt.10/12/92 (Ann.7). Moreover, under Scheme of Rules, 1957, Class IV employees are considered for promotion against 15% quota reserved as per their inter se seniority; and if no person junior to petitioner in the cadre of Class IV has been promoted as LDC prior to him certainly, he cannot claim his promotion or seniority prior to vacancy year 1983-84 as recommended by DPC. On the basis of regular promotion in the cadre of LDC against vacancy year 1983-84, his seniority was accordingly re-drawn vide order dt.12/07/93 (Ann.9) – consequent whereupon as per his revised seniority he was considered for promotion in the cadre of UDC vide order dt.03/01/96 (Ann.12) against vacancy year 1993-94. Taking note of what has been observed (supra), submission made by Counsel for CW 3124/96 //5// petitioner about re-assigning and re-drawing seniority on the recommendation of DPC in the cadres of LDC & UDC without affording opportunity of hearing being violative of principles of natural justice, is without any substance for the reason that petitioner failed to show any person junior in the cadre of Class IV, having been promoted as LDC prior to him or assigned higher seniority than him, in the absence whereof, opportunity of hearing is an empty formality and is not going to service any purpose; inasmuch as there is no material placed by petitioner on record which may show of any prejudice having caused by virtue of action impugned. This Court does not find any error in the orders impugned herein; and action of respondents is in consonance with R.7(3) of Rules, 1957 warranting no interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/ 3124CW96Aug27SnrtyDs.doc