SBCWP NO.6824/97. SBCWP NO.6825/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824/1997. Babu Lal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6825/1997. Jagdish Prasad Jat Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manoj Pareek for the petitioners. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions are directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 30/9/1997 by which, appeals against the order of reversion were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the submissions made by him in Ground F of the writ petition and argued that SBCWP NO.6824/97. SBCWP NO.6825/97. 2 petitioners filed number of documents before the Tribunal showing that there were vacancies of Class-IV available in the office of Joint Director itself and therefore even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that promotion and simultaneous promotion of petitioners from Class-IV to LDC to another Districts namely; Jhunjhunu and Sikar as was the case of the petitioners, should have been considered for promotion in the office of Joint Director itself being the vacancies available there and that the Director Medical and Health Services has authroised one Deputy Director at the State level, to undertake exercise of promotion on the basis of district-wise seniority list. There is quota of 15% as provided to the Class- IV for being promoted to the cadre of LDC. Joint Director exceeded to his powers and went outside his jurisdiction not only promoting petitioners but also transferring them to another Districts so that they can be accommodated against the available vacancies of such Districts. This would defeat claim of the eligible persons in those Districts. Government therefore rightly withdrew the order. SBCWP NO.6824/97. SBCWP NO.6825/97. 3 For the stated reasons, I find that the Tribunal was not unjustified in rejecting the application of the petitioners. However, at the same time, petitioners are set at liberty to make a suitable representation to the respondents for promotion against 15% quota on the basis of seniority and if it is found that any junior to the petitioners i.e. Hari Narain has been considered for promotion, petitioners shall also set up his specific case in representation which the respondents shall consider and decide within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil