1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 193/1997 Dr. Vinod Vijayvargiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 17.02.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr R.N. Upadhyaya, for the petitioner/s. Mr J.L. Purohit, for the respondent/s. ... The petitioner, a Member of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch), while holding the post of Associate Professor in the speciality of Anesthesia preferred this petition for writ seeking direction for allocating the first and third vacancies relating to the post of Professor for the year 1996-97 to be filled in by criteria of seniority cum merit. As per the petitioner his name was at S.No.18 in the seniority list relating to Associate Professors in the speciality of Anesthesia and on retirement of Dr. O.P. Garg a vacancy in the cadre of Professor occurred in the year 1996-97. In the same year two vacancies occurred in the cadre of Professor due to retirement of Dr. S.C. Bhandari and Dr. I.P. Garg. The vacancy occurred due to retirement of Dr. O.P. Garg was filled in by adopting the criteria of merit and as per the criteria aforesaid Dr. K.L. Tulsiani was promoted. The stand of the petitioner is that the first vacancy could have been filled in as per the criteria of seniority cum merit. 2 In reply to the writ petition the respondents have accepted the position that first vacancy was required to be filled in by seniority cum merit and subsequent thereto was to be filled in as per the criteria of merit and this mode is required to be maintained in cyclic order. According to the respondents the first vacancy occurred in the year 1996-97 as a matter of fact was filled in by promotion of Dr. A. Jairam on basis of the criteria of seniority cum merit and the next vacancy was filled in by adhering the criteria of merit and under this criteria promotion was given to Dr. K.P. Vyas (respondent No.2). It is further stated that the next vacancy on becoming available shall be filled in under the criteria of seniority cum merit. In view of the factual explanation given by the respondents in para 7 of the reply to the writ petition cause sought to be agitated does not survive. As a matter of fact, no person junior than the petitioner has been promoted under the criteria of seniority cum merit and the respondent No.2 was promoted under the criteria of merit. In view of whatever discussed above I do not find any merit in this petition for writ, hence, dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '