BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 1 BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) Date of Judgment :- 26th February,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Rajiv Purohit, for the appellant. Mr.Vimal Kumar Mathur, Additional Government Counsel for the State. Mr.M.R.Singhvi, for respondent no.3. BY THE COURT :( PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.) 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 24.9.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent no. 3 herein, assailing the validity of order appointing the appellant on the post of Executive Engineer(Civil) on regular basis under Rule 15 of Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch), Rules, 1958 against the vacancies of year 1973, stands disposed of with the following observations:- “In my opinion, interest of justice would be met if the State Govt. is directed to reconsider the entire situation in proper perspective of what has been laid down in the judgment dated 15.9.94 and consider the case of concerned officials including the respondent B.D.Goswami and such other officials as may desire to agitate this question. The State should also grant reasonable opportunity to each such official stating his case in relation to the implementation of that judgment. It is also abundantly made clear that all BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 2 persons concerned with this aspect of the matter, if aggrieved by any decision taken by the State hereinafter shall have the opportunity to approach the appropriate forum on the decision being taken by the State. In such circumstances, I see no reason to keep the petition pending , the same is disposed of in light of the above observations.” 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge as aforesaid inasmuch as according to him the same has an effect of nullifying the directions issued by this court in his favour, vide judgment dated 15.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5209/94, which has attained finality . 3. The background facts in nutshell are that the appellant entered the services of Public Health & Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan as an Assistant Engineer on 8.9.66. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis after due selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission( in short “RPSC” hereinafter) w.e.f. 22.8.70. 4. A meeting of departmental promotion committee was convened in the year 1973 for considering the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against 40 existing vacancies. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the DPC, 31 persons were appointed on the post of Executive Engineer however, the candidature of the appellant was not considered though he was eligible and fell in the zone of BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 3 consideration. The appellant was ultimately promoted as Executive Engineer on 11.12.79 but, that order was later modified. In these circumstances, the appellant challenged the action of the respondent authorities in not sending his name for consideration before the DPC of 1973, by way of Writ Petition No. 5209/94 before this court. 5. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 15.9.96 in the following terms:- “Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that as there is no plausible explanation given by the respondents for not considering the petitioner's case in the D.P.C. Meeting held in the year 1973, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer(Civil) as on the date on which the D.P.C. meeting was held in the year 1973 if he was eligible for consideration in all other respects on that date. If the petitioner is found to be fit, he shall be given seniority and all other benefits as would have accrued to him on his selection in the year 1973 and consequential appointment on promotion. This order shall be complied with within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. It is to be noticed that the claim of the appellant that he was eligible for promotion in the year 1973 and he fell within the zone of consideration was not in dispute before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the directions were issued for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Executive BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 4 Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973. 7. A special appeal preferred by one Shri Raj Govind Mathur against the aforesaid order dated 15.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 19.5.97 passed in Special Appeal No.367/97. A special leave petition preferred against the Bench decision dated 19.5.97 also stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.1.98. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the appellant for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer(Civil) against the vacancies of the year 1973 has attained finality. 8. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal while giving effect to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal , the State Government has passed an order dated 12.3.03 to the effect that the appellant had not completed five years of service as Assistant Engineer after his regular appointment on the said post w.e.f. 17.10.70 therefore, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973. However, the order passed as aforesaid has not been given effect to in view of the pendency of this appeal. BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 5 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment dated 15.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge having attained finality , therefore, the eligibility of the appellant for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973 could not have been questioned by the respondent no.3 by way of yet another writ petition before this court and the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in issuing the directions for reconsideration of the entire matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the effected persons including the petitioner- respondent no.3 and the appellant. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel submitted that vide order dated 15.9.94, no directions have been issued to accord promotion to the appellant against the vacancies of year 1973 therefore, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the claim of all the eligible persons with regard to promotion after giving them reasonable opportunity to each official stating his case in relation to the implementation of the judgment , cannot be faulted with. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the various orders passed by this Court, the order dated 5.1.98 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other material on record. BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 6 12. It is to be noticed that the eligibility of the appellant for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973 was not in dispute before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition No.5209/94 decided vide judgment dated 15.9.94. Accordingly, the directions were issued by the learned Single Judge to the respondents to consider the appellant's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as on the date on which the DPC meeting was held in the year 1973, if he was eligible for consideration in all other respects on that date . It is not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment dated 15.9.94 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court has attained finality. Thus,the question with regard to the eligibility of the appellant for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer cannot be reopened . In any case, the validity of the decision dated 15.9.94 determining the eligibility of the appellant for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973 could not have been challenged by the respondent no.3 by way of yet another writ petition. 13. If the respondent no. 3 had any grievance with regard to the order dated 15.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, then, only course open for him was to prefer a special appeal/ review petition before this Court. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 7 the matter of 'Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah' (2007) 7 SCC 689, wherein the Court has categorically held that : “once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice.” 14. In view of the settled position of law as aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge which has an effect of reopening the issue regarding eligibility of the appellant to be considered for his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) against the vacancies of year 1973 is not sustainable in eye of law. 15. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge BALDEO GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL(W) NO.1145/97) 8 is set aside . It is made clear that the question with regard to eligibility of the appellant to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer(Civil) cannot be reopened and the respondents are under an obligation to implement the judgment dated 15.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, without affecting the rights of the appellant as aforesaid, if the respondent no. 3 and his likes are entitled to any relief regarding consideration of their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1973 and subsequent thereto , the same shall not be denied to them on account of this order. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-