1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5882/1996 Prem Chand Yadav vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. Date of order : 6/4/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Neeraj Kumar Bhatt for the petitioner. Ms. Sonal Singh ) Shri N.S. Chouhan ) for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1996 inter alia with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider his case for promotion on the post of Architect Assistant as well as Town Planning Assistant because the post of Senior Draftsman was in the feeder cadre of both these promotion posts. Shri Neeraj Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the additional affidavit, placed on record along with a chart prepared by the respondents themselves in their budget estimate of 2009-2010 and argued that in that chart it is indicated that there were three sanctioned posts of Architectural Assistant and six sanctioned posts of Town Planning Assistant prior to 2 31.12.2008. Though all three posts of Architectural Assistant are filled, but there are still two vacancies of the post of Town Planning Assistant. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no vacancy to consider the case of the petitioner, was wholly untenable. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner was appointed / promoted on the post of Senior Draftsman on 27.12.1993 and in the case of the private respondents, who were general candidates, the respondents relaxed the requirement of experience of five years and considered their case for promotion on the basis of only three years experience. The same yardstick should be applied to the case of the petitioner, more so, when no candidate of Scheduled Caste was working on the post of Town Planning Assistant. Ms. Sonal Singh and Shri N.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted to either of two posts. In so far as the post of Town Planning Assistant is 3 concerned, all the persons who have been promoted including the private respondents, were senior to the petitioner. The petitioner completed the exercise of five years only on 27.12.1998 and, therefore, non consideration of the case of the petitioner to the post of Town Planning Assistant, prior to that date, cannot be said to be in any way illegal or against the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that even though the promotion order of the petitioner was issued on 27.12.1993 against the vacancies of the year 1992-93, therefore, he would become eligible for promotion on 27.12.1992 when such order was made effective. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976 provides for experience of five years working as Senior Draftsman for promotion to the post of Town Planning Assistant. The petitioner, as per the record, was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1992-93. He would 4 therefore be eligible for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1997-98. The respondents have not denied the fact that they have two vacancies available in the cadre of Town Planning Assistant. In the circumstances, when petitioner would have completed five years experience, the seniority in any case would not be a criteria to deny him the right to promotion, because he being a member of Scheduled Caste has a right to be promoted against the quota of Schedule Caste category. The respondents have not shown whether anyone has been promoted on the post of Town Planning Assistant against the reserved post of Scheduled Caste. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion against the one of the available vacancy either in the year 1997-98, if the vacancy was available in that year, or at any later point of time thereafter, when the vacancy became available and if adjudged suitable, grant him promotion with consequential benefits for the intervening period. The petitioner would however be 5 deemed to be promoted against the quota of such year for all other purposes including for the purpose of consideration of his case on a still higher cadre. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/