1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4865/2001. Mrs. Meena Mathur Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4970/2001. V.D.Dadhich Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Date of Order : : 9.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Vikrant Gupta ] Mr.Sandeep Saxena for the petitioners. Ms.Sweta Pareek for Mr.R.D.Rastogi for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 25.9.2001 of their reversion from the post of Office Assistant to that of UDC. The petitioners were promoted on the post of Office Assistant by order dated 6.7.1999 on temporary basis for a period of six months or till further orders, whichever was earlier against the consequential post on account of internal adjustments to direct the Asstts./Acotts. to discharge the duties of higher posts. The order of reversion was passed belatedly in 2 compliance of the judgment passed by this Court dated 6.2.2001 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4107/1999 : Ashok Mathur Vs. University of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, this Court directed that ad hoc promotions should not be continued for longer duration and if for some eventuality ad hoc promotion is required to be made it should be made, only for a short period and should not appear to have replaced the regular promotion. The University shall call the meeting of DPC and fill up the posts by regular selection. Till then the ad hoc promotion made by the University shall continue but not thereafter. Since the direction of this Court was to continue only upto three months the petitioners had to be reverted. Shri Vikrant Gupta and Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there are two modes as referred to Rajasthan University Employees (Non- Teaching) Recruitment Ordinance (for short “Recruitment Ordinance”), which subsequently became the Rules and argued that source of recruitment as envisaged in Rule 11 thereof was, apart from direct recruitment, also by promotion and within promotion there are further two modes one by direct recruitment/selection and further by appointing employees borrowed from Government Departments. The 3 respondents conducted held the written examination and then prepared the merit and on that basis, appointment of the petitioners was made. The condition of promotion on temporary basis for a period of six months was unjust and improper because their promotion was made after following due procedure as envisaged in the rules, therefore, his promotion is liable to be treated as substantive promotion. Ms.Sweta Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents in reply to the writ petition has contended that no doubt there is quota of 1/3rd direct recruitment which was filled up by selection but the petitioners were placed in the reserve list and their names i.e Shri V.D.Dadhich and Smt.Meena Mathur appeared at Serial Nos.8 & 9 respectively and regular promotion could be made upto seven posts because only seven posts have become available upto 31.3.2000 during the pendency of reserve list of one year thereafter no substantive vacancy became available the petitioners were promoted in the vacancy that became available due to internal adjustment as the Section Officers who were holding these posts on substantive basis were asked to discharge the duties on higher post. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined and contended that subsequently the petitioners were 4 promoted on regular basis by order dated 16.12.2006, but their reversion was wholly unjust because there was no order of this Court to revert the petitioner and the direction was made to such of the petitioners who were on ad hoc basis. In the present case, the petitioners were promoted because they faced the selection and their names appeared in the reserve list and the judgment of this Court could not be made basis for reverting the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that the order of promotion of the petitioners is very categorical, which interalia states that they are promoted for six months or till further orders, whichever was earlier on account of internal adjustment to direct the Section Officers to discharge the duties of higher posts. The respondents in reply have clarified this situation that till the reserve list remained valid upto 31.3.2000, only seven posts became available and no person beyond seventh was promoted, even because certain officers were asked to discharge the duties of higher posts the petitioners were promoted on temporary basis. Obviously, the post against which the Section Officers who were substantially holding the post, held lien against such posts and regular promotion against such posts 5 could not be made unless such vacancies were free from the lien. In course of time, the petitioners were promoted as and when substantive vacancy became available. Since there is no rebuttal to this fact a direction in the nature of which it has been prayed for cannot be issued. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed though with the direction that whatever peculiar benefits the petitioners have been withdrawn pursuant to their promotion on temporary basis, which was continued on account of the interim order passed by this Court shall not be liable to be withdrawn. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-