1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4361/96 Prem Chand vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 7/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgement of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 2.7.1996. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, wherein the claim of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Office Assistant, was that he should have been considered eligible for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent against the vacancies of the year 1994-95. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents before the Tribunal on the plea that since the eligibility requirement for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent is that the candidate must have experience of four years in the feeder cadre of Office Assistant and the petitioner 2 was promoted as Office Assistant vide order dated 18.12.1990 and the post on which the petitioner was so promoted as Office Assistant was itself upgraded vide order dated 18.6.1990, therefore, he was not eligible. The Tribunal upheld this contention and thus rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Shri Sandeep Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was even though promoted on the post of Office Assistant vide order dated 18.12.1990, but since this promotion was made during the year 1991, therefore, the experience of the petitioner should be counted from 1.4.1990, the date on which the year begins. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of Jai Narain Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan-1994 (3) WLC (Raj.) 537 and another judgement of coordinate bench of this Court in Laxman Prasad Meena & Ors. vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7566/08 decided on 18.9.2009. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional 3 Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the cited judgements are not applicable to the facts of the present case because in those cases, the vacancy against which promotion was made pertain to a particular year and even though D.P.C. was convened subsequently and promotion order was issued at later point of time, but the experience had to be countable from 1st April of that year. In the present case, it is contended that the vacancy in question was not available in the beginning of year 1991. It was the post of Office Assistant, which was upgraded in June, 1990 and therefore the petitioner was promoted on that post by order dated 18.12.1990. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal was cognizant of the decision rendered by this Court in Jai Narain Meena, supra and distinguished the same on the plea that the post of Office Superintendent, on which the petitioner is claiming his consideration for promotion, did not actually occur as on 1.4.1990 and that this 4 post was created by way of upgradation of the post of Office Assistant on 18.6.1990 and therefore the Tribunal held that Rule 26D of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner and therefore service and experience on the post of Office Assistant can be taken into consideration with effect from 18.12.1990 or at the most from 18.6.1990 when post was created but not from 1.4.1990 as claimed by the petitioner. On the analogy, which was applied by this Court in the judgement cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, his contention cannot be upheld. The judgment of the Tribunal thus does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which may warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/