CWP 449/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.449/2007 Muzaffar Ahmed Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 01/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr Rajendra Soni, for petitioner Mr Sanjay Srivastava Dy.GA, for respondent-State With the consent of parties, matter has been finally heard and is being disposed of at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite his seniority in the cadre of Nurse Gr.II stood revised and placed at S.No. 333A vide order dt.25/06/04, DPC of the post of Nurse Gr.I has not been reviewed despete the fact that his juniors were promoted as Nurse GR.I against vacancy of year 2002-03. Petitioner was initially appointed as Nurse Gr.II vide order dt.03/02/84 (Ann.1) and joined on 10/02/84. Final seniority list of Nurse Gr.II was published on 15/02/03 (Ann.2) and on representation, his seniority stood revised vide order dt.25/06/04 (Ann.4) as per which name of petitioner has finally been placed at S.No.333A in seniority list dt.15/02/03. It is not in dispute that those juniors to him like Phool Chand Saini and others were CWP 449/07 //2// promoted on the recommendations of DPC as Nurse gr.I vide order dt.28/05/03 (Ann.3) and despite he now being made senior, respondents have failed to hold review DPC, to which they are under legal obligation, in view of his revised placement in seniority list. In their reply, respondents inter-alia averred that candidature of petitioner will be considered for promotion against the year from which his juniors were promoted whenever review DPC is convened in due course of time, which is in process. Counsel submits that sufficient time has rolled by, yet petitioner has not been considered so far, which has caused great prejudice to him. Post of Nurse Gr.I is included in Schedule appended to Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (“Rules, 1965”) and as per R.24-A(11-B) of Rules, 1965 if there is a change in seniority, i.e. one of reasons, for which State Government is under obligation to hold review DPC for an incumbent whose seniority is subsequently revised. Sub-rule (11-B) to R.24A reads ad infra: “24-A. Revised Criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadred in the Service.- (1) to (11) Not relevant CWP 449/07 //3// (11-B). The Government or the appointing authority may order for the review of the proceedings of the DPC held earlier on account of some mistake of error apparent on the face of record, or on account of factual error substantially affecting the decision of the DPC or for any other sufficient reasons e.g. Change in seniority, wrong determination of vacancies, judgment/ direction of any court or Tribunal, or where adverse entries in confidential reports of an individual are expunged or turned down or punishment inflicted on him is set aside or reduced. The concurrence of the Department of Personnel and the Commission (where commission is associated) shall always be obtained before holding the meeting of the review DPC. Seniority of petitioner also stands revised vide order dt.25/06/04 (Ann.4) as per which his name has been included at S.No.333A in final seniority list published on 15/02/03. Almost four years have now elapsed, yet State Government despite being under legal obligation in view of R.24-A(11-B) of Rules, 1965, failed to hold review DPC; and their statement is that it is in process, suffice is to say as to how long, such process will continue for holding review DPC, one is not made aware of. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and CWP 449/07 //4// is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to hold review DPC in terms of R.24A(11-B) of Rules, 1965 within three months for consideration of petitioner's candidature for promotion to the post of Nurse Gr.I against vacancy year of 2002- 03; and for later years also and in case of being found suitable, petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits from the date his juniors Phool Chand Saini & others were promoted vide order dt. 28/05/03 (Ann.3) available to him under law. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/449CW07-0105.doc