1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.248/1995. : : Mohar Singh Vs. Chairman, UIT, Alwar & Anr. : : Date of Order 31.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Prashant Chahar for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Tantia for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by action of respondents in not promoting him on the post of Mistri/Helper from the date his juniors were so promoted. 3. Shri Prashant Chahar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was initially appointed with the respondents as Beldar on 1.1.1976. He alongwith Kushiram and Hariram was declared as semi-permanent vide order dated 14.7.1982. While Kushiram was declared permanent on the post of Mistri and Hariram Saini was also made permanent on the post of Vehicle Helper by order 2 dated 1.5.1993, but the petitioner, who was appointed earlier to both of them, was declared permanent on the post of Beldar. Learned counsel submitted that contention of respondents that petitioner was not possessing requisite academic qualification, therefore, he could not be declared permanent is falsified from their own order dated 11.6.1992 wherein two persons namely; Kanhaiya Lal and Kishanlal have been shown as Mistri, with qualification of mere literate. It is contended that according to information of petitioner his case was sent to DPC for consideration, but he was not recommended for promotion and no reason has been convened to petitioner. 3. Shri Ajay Tantia, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that since Kanhaiya Lal was having technical knowledge since appointment, therefore, he was made permanent on the post of Mistri. Similarly, Lalluram and Ghanshyam Saini were also made permanent on the post of Vahan Helper because they possessed proper technical knowledge. In the case of Hariram Saini, he was made permanent on the post of Vehicle Helper because of his technical knowledge. It is contended that case of the petitioner has already been 3 considered by DPC and he was not found eligible for promotion, therefore, he was not rightly granted promotion on the post of Mistri/Helper. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This matter was earlier heard on 26.2.2009 on which date the Court passed the following order :- “On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the respondent was asked to produce minutes of DPC to show as to for what reason the petitioner was held to be ineligible and was not made semi- permanent and why his junior Khusiram was adjudged suitable for being made semi- permanent on the post of Mistri and Hariram as Helper. He wants one more opportunity to produce the record of DPC. List this matter after two weeks.” Today when the case was again heard, learned counsel for the respondents produced copy of the order dated 3.6.1999 showing that petitioner has been granted benefit of selection scale on completion of nine years of service. Learned counsel also produced the copy of the letter dated 17.2.2009 addressed by Officer Superintendent, UIT, 4 Alwar to Head Legal Assistant, UIT, Alwar convening that relevant file of DPC was not available in the records and that petitioner has been granted benefits of selection scale. 6. On one hand, respondents contend that case of petitioner by DPC was considered, but he was not found suitable whereas others have been promoted, on the other, the documents produced on record such as order dated 1.5.1993 indicate that Kushiram and Hariram, two juniors of petitioner were straightway made permanent on the post of Mistri and Vehicle Helper respectively. The fact remains that petitioner, who is senior to both of them according to orders dated 14.7.1982 and 1.5.1993, has been grossly discriminated against. Another contention of respondents that since petitioner was not possessing requisite academic qualification, therefore, he could not be declared permanent on the post of Mistri, also cannot be accepted because as per order of respondents dated 11.6.1992 issuing seniority list of semi-permanent Mistri, two persons Kanhaiya Lal and Kishanlal have been shown as Mistri, with qualification of mere literate. Obviously, the respondents are not disclosing true and correct facts before the Court only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate entitlement. 5 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that action of respondents is held to be violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. Obviously, the respondents have considered the working experience of Kushiram as his technical knowledge and in the case of other two persons namely; Kanhaiya Lal and Kishanlal, their working experience has been accepted sufficient enough to entitle them for being made permanent/appointed on the post of Mistri. Petitioners have also been throughout discharging the duties of Mistri, which is evident from various certificates issued to him by Superintendent of UIT, which are on record. He also thus possessing the same nature of working experience. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for being permanent/promoted on the post of Mistri within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. If eventually, the petitioner is promoted on the post of Mistri, his promotion would relate to the date of promotion granted to Kushiram i.e. 1.5.1993, but he would be only entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ -Item No.H/ 3.t