CW 11277/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11277/2009 Sushil Kumar Gaur Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 16/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Anoop Dhand, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.24/03/05 (Ann.11) whereby promotions were made against vacancies of year 1998-99 to 2004-05 in the cadre of Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer (“ACTO”) under Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service Rules, 1971 (“Rules, 1971”). It appears that petitioner challenged appointment made vide orders dt.31/07/97 (Ann.5 & 6) in the cadre of ACTO on adhoc basis by filing appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and pendente appeal (No.1160/97-Sushil Kr Gaur Vs. State), he was promoted as ACTO on review & revision basis against the year 1997-98 vide order dt.08/04/99 (Ann.7) – taking note whereof, his appeal was decided by learned Tribunal vide judgment dt.28/06/09 (Ann.8) and later on he was considered for promotion on regular basis against vacancy of 1998-99 and was promoted as ACTO on the recommendations of CW 11277/09 //2// DPC, vide order dt.24/03/05 wherein his name finds place at S.No.4. Consequent upon promotion on regular basis, initially tentative seniority was published on26/05/07 (Ann.13) which was finalised after taking note of objections made by affected/aggrieved persons including petitioner, as well vide order dt.02/06/08 (Ann.15) wherein his name finds place at S.No.87 on being regularly appointed against vacancy year 1998-99. Grievance of petitioner raised herein is that those who were junior to him in feeder cadre of Commercial Taxes Inspector (“CTI”) were promoted against vacancy year of 1997-98 while he was recommended against vacancy year 1998-99 despite the facts that these promotions were made on the basis of seniority cum merit. Counsel further contends that his supersession against vacancy year 1997-98 is violative of Rules, 1971 and cause of action has accrued while final seniority of ACTOs was published by department on 02/06/08 and immediately after legal notice being served, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. In the opinion of this Court, the submissions made on behalf of petitioner are CW 11277/09 //3// without substance for the reason that petitioner was promoted as ACTO against vacancy year 1998-99 on the recommendation of DPC vide order dt.24/03/05 (Ann.11), against which if at all he was aggrieved, or his grievance as raised before this Court that juniors in his cadre were promoted as ACTO against vacancy of earlier year 1997-98, there was certainly remedy available for him to raise his grievance before learned Tribunal under provisions of Rajasthan Service Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. As regards submission made in respect of cause of action having accrued on publication of final seniority list of ACTOs vide order dt.02/06/08 (Ann.15), suffice it to say that seniority has been published by the department on the basis of regular selection held in the cadre of ACTO and it is not the case of petitioner that those who were placed senior to him in the seniority impugned have been promoted either against vacancy year 1998-99 or in later years being placed above him. Certainly it would not give him a fresh cause of action in assailing order dt.24/03/05 (Ann.11) – against which remedy was available for petitioner to file appeal before learned CW 11277/09 //4// Tribunal. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain instant petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail of remedy under law against orders impugned herein. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 11277CW09RmdySnrtyACTOSpt16.doc