CWP 13132/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13132/2009 Shree Chand Karol Vs. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & others. DATE OF ORDER : 28/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Prahlad Sharma, for petitioner. *** Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order of the Tribunal dt. 02/06/2009 whereby the grievance, raised by the petitioner in regard to his supersession while promotion made in the cadre of Joint Registrar on seniority-cum-merit against the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, has been rejected on the premise that he had adverse remarks and a punishment in his service record and on the basis of which he was considered to be unsuitable for promotion for the respective years on the post of Joint Registrar. It has been alleged that two officers namely; Mr. Madan Lal Rathi and Mr. Puran Mal were junior to him in the cadre of Deputy Registrar, however, both were promoted on the recommendations of DPC against the vacancies of the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively vide orders dated 28/06/2008 and 03/09/2007 respectively. His grievance is that he has been arbitrarily superseded. CWP 13132/09 [2] In the reply filed by the State Government before the Tribunal it has been averred that his APARs for the year 1989-90 was adverse and apart from it in a regular enquiry initiated under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, he was punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18/06/1989 and one enquiry under Rule 16 was pending at the time when the DPC considered him for promotion against the respective year 2006-07 and 2007-08 for the post of Joint Registrar (Cooperative). The promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and if an incumbent holds satisfactory record of service, he is entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority but in the instant case, even if the petitioner was senior in the cadre of Deputy Registrar as alleged, he could not be promoted as a matter of right until his service record is satisfactory which was to be looked into by the DPC while making its recommendations. It has not been disputed that there was adverse remarks recorded in his APARs for the year 1989-90 and at the same time also punished with the penalty of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18/06/1989, certainly his CWP 13132/09 [3] record was not satisfactory which may make him suitable for promotion. It is also not the case of the petitioner that those, who are alleged to be junior to him, were also holding unsatisfactory record of service and still recommended by the DPC for promotion in the cadre of Joint Registrar (Cooperative) against the vacancies of the year 2006-07 and 2007-98 respectively. Counsel submits that whatever nature of misconduct committed by him, he has already been punished and adverse remarks were also recorded and if he is superseded, that certainly caused double punishment for the alleged misconduct which at once committed by him. In the opinion of this Court, the submission is without merit for the reason that for the misconduct committed by him he was punished and for the overall performance of the year adverse remarks were recorded in his APARS but that becomes a part of record and the DPC is supposed to examine the service record of the incumbent including the penalty if any inflicted while adjudging suitability for the post in question and the principle of double jeopardy has no application in the facts of the instant case. Consequently, this Court finds no manifest CWP 13132/09 [4] error being committed by the Tribunal in passing the order impugned which may call for interference. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-13132-CW-2009-final.doc