1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5004/94 Viresh Jhalanee & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 13/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.D. Rastogi for the petitioners. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. Shri V.K. Sharma for respondent no.4 & 5. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the entry made in column no.7 against S.No.3 of Schedule appended to Rajasthan Town Planning Service Rules, 1966 inserted by amendment vide Notification dated 30.10.1984 which provides for promotion for integrated seniority of Senior Town Planner for promotion on the post of Deputy Town Planner. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be directed to take seniority of the post of Assistant Town Planners into consideration for the said promotion of the Town Planning Wing and not to consider those working as Assistant Town Planners (Planning & Research) for promotion to the post of Deputy Town Planner and that only such Assistant Town Planner should be considered 2 for promotion who holds the requisite qualification. Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is already stagnation in so far as Town Planning Wing of the respondents is concerned and the Assistant Town Planner could not get promotion to the post of Deputy Town Planner for a long period. There was no reason for the respondents to amend the rules and make the Assistant Town Planner (Planning & Research) Wing as eligible for promotion. Even otherwise, the Rules require that for promotion to the post of Deputy Town Planner, experience of five years was necessary which the private respondents Shri S.K. Mathur and Shri Satish Kumar Shrimali did not possess. Their promotion if allowed to be made, they would still a march over all other Assistant Town Planners coming from Town Planning Wing. Respondents have contested the writ petition and in reply to the writ petition submitted that the amendment in question was introduced way back in the year 1984 and was all through acted upon with various 3 promotion orders being passed from time to time. The petitioners themselves have taken the benefit of said provision. Source of recruitment for the post of Deputy Town Planner was earlier 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment, which has since been made 100% by promotion. The petitioners themselves have taken benefit of this clause. So far as promotion of the private respondents is concerned, it is contended that the Planning and Research Wing is a separate Wing and petitioner never challenged creation of such Wing. Promotion to the post of Deputy Town Planners in Geographic Planning & Research Wing could not be granted to the petitioner because they do not have the qualification thereof. The respondent nos.4 and 5 were promoted consequent upon recommendation of the DPC. The writ petitioners do not have any legal right to question the promotion of private respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Counsel and perused the material on record, I find that the amendment which is sought to 4 be questioned by the petitioner was made way back in the year 1984 vide notification dated 30.10.1984, whereas the writ petition has been filed enormously delayed after a decade thereof in the year 1994. All this time, the amended provisions were acted upon by the respondents including in regard to the petitioners. What should be the channel of promotion and promotion should be made from which cadre and on what qualification is a policy decision for the respondents to decide. While the petitioners can claim right to consideration for their promotion, but at the same time, such consideration cannot be altogether denied to their counter parts in Planning and Research Wing. The Planning and Research Wing was created way back in 1984 and since the time it was created, it was never challenged by the petitioners. Now that some of the respondents have secured promotions, the petitioners felt apprehended that their chances of promotion on higher posts would be delayed, but that cannot by itself justify challenge to the Rules. The Rules have been framed by the competent authority. 5 The amendment even otherwise is intended to bring out uniformity in the pattern of promotion so as to remove the stagnation for both the wings. The source of recruitment for promotion was earlier 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, which has since been made 100% by promotion. The Rule therefore cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners in any case. The petitioners cannot claim for being considered for promotion denying such a consideration to the private respondents. In fact, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents indicates that during the interregnum period of 10 years, several promotions were made on the basis of amended rules, none of which are questioned by the petitioners. Filing of the present writ petition is therefore wholly misconceived not only for the reason of delay but also on merits. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/