SBCWP4033/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4033/1997 {Ghanshyam Atri Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another} Date of Order ::: 09.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sajid Ali, Counsel for petitioner Shri Chetan Bairwa, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Ghanshyam Atri, challenging validity of amendment notification dated 06.07.1990, thereby amending the Rajasthan Ground Water Board Service Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). Originally, method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer provided in the Rules was 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion and, by way of said notification, it was amended and method of recruitment was made with 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The petitioner challenged that part of Notification whereby, out of 50% quota meant for promotion, 17% quota is required to be filled in from amongst workshop Supervisors and Drilling-Foreman, while 33% quota is required SBCWP4033/1997 // 2 // to be filled in from amongst rest of 7 categories of candidates, namely, Drilling- Supervisor and 6 Other services. Contention of Shri Sajid Ali, learned counsel for petitioner, is that respondent No.3 Tejpal Saini, who was initially appointed as Driller, was junior to him as would be evident from seniority list dated 10.02.1981, wherein name of petitioner appeared at serial No.22 whereas name of Tejpal Saini appeared at Serial No.23, yet Tejpal Saini was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Drilling-Foreman vide order dated 09.06.1997, whereas petitioner was not promoted as Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondents promoted the petitioner to the post of Drilling-Supervisor, as a result of which he fell in another category for which, out of 50% quota, 33% quota was provided for promotion and remaining 17% quota was provided for the category of Workshop-Supervisor and Drilling-Foreman, in which Tejpal Saini fell. Since Tejpal Saini had excellent chances of promotion, he got promotion and it was not available for the stream to which the petitioner was promoted SBCWP4033/1997 // 3 // i.e. Drilling-Supervisor. Had he been promoted as Drilling-Foreman instead of Drilling- Supervisor, the feeder post of both of which was Driller, he would have also been promoted as Assistant Engineer earlier than Tejpal Saini. Shri Chetan Bairwa, learned counsel for respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that no exception can be taken to the Rules as to in what manner the cadre should be structured and what should be the method of recruitment and source of recruitment and the same are to be decided by appointing authority. In fact, by the impugned Notification the earlier 25% quota of promotion was increased to 50% and source of recruitment was changed from 25% to 50% by way of promotion and thereafter it was further bifurcated into two categories, referred to above. However, this bifurcation did not in any manner diminishes the chances of petitioner of promotion; even if promotion avenues is deleted on account of certain amendment that cannot be reason to declare the Rules ultra-vires or illegal. The petitioner never challenged the promotion granted to Tejpal Saini on the post of Drilling-Foreman and accepted his own promotion on the post of SBCWP4033/1997 // 4 // Drilling-Supervisor. The Rules which were amended in the year 1990 by Notification issued on 06.07.1990, have been belatedly challenged in the writ petition filed in year 1997. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record, I find that the petitioner has not disclosed specifically as to what was the date on which Tejpal Saini was promoted on the post of Drilling-Foreman. The petitioner did not challenge his promotion on the post of Drilling-Foreman and at that time did not claim promotion on that post. When pointed query was made to learned counsel for petitioner, he could not give specific date of promotion of Tejpal Saini as Drilling-Foreman. It is, therefore, to be inferred that petitioner was promoted on the post of Drilling-Supervisor earlier to promotion granted to Tejpal Saini. Even otherwise, the petitioner accepted his own promotion on the post of Drilling-Supervisor. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent, it is within the domain of appointing authority to decide as to in what manner particular cadre is to be structured and what should be ratio and SBCWP4033/1997 // 5 // source of recruitment and what should be method of recruitment. Merely because chances of promotion are to some what extent delayed by amendment in the Rules, this cannot be a reason for holding the Rules ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as in any case the employer has mere right of relaxation to consider his case for promotion in accordance with the Rules. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//