CW 9979/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9979/09 Prahlad Versus Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 21/08/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Anand Sharma, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing award dt.2nd June, 2007 [Ann.7] passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur. Main contention of counsel for petitioner is that he is working as Safai Karamchari and entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Fireman under Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate & Ministerial Service Rules, 1963. From the record, it appears that committee in its meeting held on 18/3/1983 [Ann.1] prepared the list of employees who are working in Municipal Council, Bharatpur, who were found suitable for the post of Fireman in the category of ST, petitioner's name finds place at Serial No.4 are recommended to be considered on priority basis. Selection was undertaken by the Municipal Council in 1989 after almost 6 yrs. of list being CW 9979/09 [2] prepared and appointments were made on the post of Fireman on 20th January, 1989 [Ann.2]. Reference was made by appropriate government to Labour Court, Bharatpur as to whether petitioner's right of consideration in regard to appointments made on 20th January, 1989 in any manner has been infringed and what relief he is entitled for. Labour Court after appreciation of material on record rejected the claim of petitioner. Counsel for petitioner submits that he being in the list prepared by Municipal Council on 18th March, 1983, he has a preferential claim in consideration for appointment on the post of Fireman which has been infringed by the respondents. Suffice it to say that in the list of ST which was prepared by Municipal Council, petitioner was at Serial No.4 and two persons were appointed in 1989 atleast the petitioner was much below in the rank to be considered for appointment even if was entitled for preferential treatment under the Rules. Labour Court has also examined the complete record and has not found any substance to interfere. CW 9979/09 [3] This court has gone through the impugned award and does not find any manifest error, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9979CW09 21-8.doc