S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1137/2005 Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 6.7.2007 HON'BLE MR.PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.M.Mridul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. RN Upadhayay, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy.GA for the respondent-State <><><> The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's candidature was not considered for promotion for the post of Joint Director for the vacancies of the year 1994-95 because of the reason of pendency of departmental inquiry only. The petitioner was subsequently exonerated in the departmental inquiry. It is submitted that petitioner's candidature should have been considered by the DPC and petitioner could have been given annual promotion after completion of departmental inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's candidature was considered but his name was at S.No.7. There were total 8 vacancies in the relevant year. Three vacancies each were available for the members of SC and ST, but only two persons from that said category were available, therefore, six persons were given promotion in general category and two promotions were given from reserve category. The petitioner's name was at S.No.7, therefore, he could not have been accorded promotion as only six posts were filled in by promotion, which were only available at the relevant time. So far as other argument submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in earlier time, the promotions were accorded but whenever the person holding the promotional post retired, the next person was given promotion. The reference of promotions given in the years 1992, 1994 and 2001 were given by the petitioner in which the respondents submitted that the candidature of each person was considered at relevant time according to the merit of each person's candidature as well as availability of post etc. It is also submitted that it was not necessary for the respondents to accord promotion unless they decided to promote so far as to the higher post is concerned. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as record. Undisputedly, the petitioner's S.No. in the list was at 7. The total vacancies were only 8. At the most six vacancies would have been filled in by promotion. Six persons senior to the petitioner were found suitable and were given promotion. Two posts were filled in by promoting members of SC and ST in reserve category. In that situation, if petitioner was placed at S.No.1 in the reserve list, the respondents did so rightly and the contention of the petitioner that candidature was not considered is devoid of any force. So far as according promotion to the other persons as named in the para no.10 of the writ petition are concerned, those promotions were given as per the decision taken with respect to particular post in past, admittedly, when the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as those promotions were accorded in the year 1992 and 2001 only, therefore, petitioner cannot claim promotion on the basis of fact of promotion of the years 1992 to 2001, which were given to individual, who as found eligible for promotion long ago. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-