1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4866/2001. : : Amardeep Singh Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. : : Date of Order 9.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr.Saugath Roy for the petitioner. Ms.Sweta Pareek for Mr.R.D.Rastogi for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.9.2001 of his reversion from the post of Office Assistant to that of UDC. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Office Assistant by order dated 6.7.1999 on temporary basis for a period of six months or till further orders, whichever was earlier against the consequential post on account of internal adjustments to direct the Asstts./Acotts. to discharge the duties of higher posts. The order of reversion was passed belatedly in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court dated 6.2.2001 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4107/1999 : Ashok Mathur Vs. University of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, this 2 Court directed that the ad hoc promotions should not be continued for longer duration and if for some eventuality ad hoc promotion is required to be made, it should be made only for a short period and should not appear to have replaced the regular promotion. The University shall call the meeting of DPC and fill up the posts by regular selection. Till then the adhoc promotion made by the University shall continue but not thereafter. Since the direction of this Court was to continue only upto three months the petitioner had to be reverted. Dr.Saugath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are two modes as referred to Rajasthan University Employees (Non-Teaching) Recruitment Ordinance (for short “Recruitment Ordinance”), which subsequently became the Rules and argued that source of recruitment as envisaged in Rule 11 thereof was, apart from direct recruitment, also by promotion and within promotion there are further two modes one by direct recruitment/selection and further by appointing employees borrowed from Government Departments. The respondents conducted held the written examination and then prepared the merit and on that basis, appointment of the petitioner was made. The condition of promotion on temporary basis for a period of six 3 months was of unjust and improper because his promotion was made after following due procedure as envisaged in the rules, therefore, his promotion is liable to be treated as substantive promotion. Ms. Sweta Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents in reply to the writ petition has clarified that the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No.10 in the reserve list and only 8 posts of UDC became available upto 31.3.2000, the time upto which the reserve list remained valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that till date the regular promotion of the petitioner has not been made. Learned counsel produced for perusal of the Court order dated 23.10.2007, which is on record. The aforesaid order again indicates that the name of petitioner at Serial No.5 showing that he along with certain other persons, was promoted on the post of UDC in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 on temporary basis without any implication. In any case, the appointment of the petitioner as UDC was protected because of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.10.2001, which has remained operative till date because the operation and effect of the order dated 25.9.2001 was stayed. Although the order dated 6.7.1999 4 cannot be treated as order of substantive promotion of the petitioner because this order on the face of it makes it clear that the petitioner was promoted on temporary basis for a period of six months with immediate effect or till further order. No substantive vacancy thereafter became available. The petitioner was promoted in the vacancy that became available due to internal adjustment as the Section Officers who were holding these posts on substantive basis were asked to discharge the duties on higher post. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that the order of promotion of the petitioners is very categorical, which interalia states that petitioner was promoted for six months or till further orders, whichever was earlier on account of internal adjustment to direct the Section Officers to discharge the duties of higher posts. The respondents in reply have clarified this situation that till the reserve list remained valid upto 31.3.2000, only seven posts became available and no person beyond seventh was promoted. Obviously, the post against which the Section Officers who were substantially holding the post, held lien against such posts and regular promotion against such posts could not be made unless such vacancies were free from the 5 lien. But the order which has been recently passed by the respondents on 23.10.2007 indicates that placement of the petitioner is fairly high in that order at Serial No.5. It however still appears that direction of this Court dated 6.2.2001 by which they were required to fill up the post by regular selection within a period of three months, has yet not been complied with. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, with direction to the respondents to undertake the exercise of making regular promotion as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. Till such time regular promotions are made the petitioner shall be continued on the post of UDC and shall not be reverted until the suitable orders are passed on the recommendation of the DPC. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-