1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.677/2007 The Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Verma Date of Judgment :: 24-07-2007 :: P R E S E N T :: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. D.K. Parihar, for the appellant. Mr. S.N. Trivedi, for the respondent. PER HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL: The instant appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 is directed against the order dated July 4, 2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1748/1993 by which the appellants are directed to determine the vacancies pertaining to the post of Store/Purchase Supervisor which are to be filled in by way of promotion, within a period of six months from the date of order and to fill in the vacancies, so determined in accordance with Rules after considering the candidature of the petitioner. 2 The respondent entered in the service of the appellant as daily rated workman on September 22, 1975. Thereafter he was employed as Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.110-230 by order dated May 3, 1977. By another order dated October 7, 1980, the respondent was designated as Time Keeper. The respondent was promoted to the post of Store Keeper in the grade of Rs.385-650 with one additional increment by order dated December 31, 1981. However, in the order granting promotion, it was stipulated that the promotion of the petitioner was for a period of one year and on completion of one year, he would be reverted to the post of Clerk if his services were not found to be satisfactory. The record indicates that service of the petitioner as Store Keeper was extended till further orders by an order dated February 23, 1983. The grievance of the respondent was that under the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Employees (Subordinate) Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, a Store Keeper having 5 years of experience is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant/Store/Purchase Supervisor but the appellant did not determine the vacancies pertaining to the post of Store/Purchase Supervisor, and therefore he was deprived of his right to be considered for promotion as Store Keeper. 3 Under the circumstances, the respondent filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to prescribe the number of posts in the category of Junior Accountant/Store/Purchase Supervisor given in the Schedule annexed to the Regulation 1980 and to fill up those posts by way of promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation of 1980. In the writ petition, though the appellants were duly served, no reply to the petition was filed by them. After considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has directed the appellants to determine the vacancies pertaining to the post of Store/Purchase Supervisor which are to be filled in by way of promotion within a period of six months from today as well as to fill in the vacancies so determined in accordance with the rules after considering the candidature of the petitioner which has given rise to the instant appeal. This Court has heard Mr. D.K. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. This Court has also considered the documents which form part of the petition. 4 During the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. S.N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent has produced an order dated May 31, 2007 passed by the Managing Director of the appellant for perusal of the Court. It indicates that pursuant to the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the case of the respondent was considered by the appellant, and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant with effect from June 10, 2002. The contention that the Court could not have directed the appellants to determine the vacancies pertaining to the post of Store/Purchase Supervisor nor could have directed to fill in the vacancies so determined in accordance with rules, and therefore the petition should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge is devoid of merits. As observed earlier, the grievance made by the petitioner was that vacancies were not determined in terms of the provisions of Regulation of 1980 and therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge cannot be regarded as illegal or erroneous so as to warrant interference of this Court in the instant appeal. Similarly, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants to consider candidature of the petitioner before filling in the vacancies so determined, also cannot be regarded as erroneous in terms of Regulation 1980. The appellants had failed to determine the 5 vacancies and as the direction given by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 1980, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal which lacks merits deserves to be summarily dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. [BHANWAROO KHAN ],J. [J.M.PANCHAL],ACTG.CJ. Praveen