CW- 366/1996-Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan. Judgment dt.11.9.08 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.366/1996 Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan. Date of order : 11th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Harish Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Government Advocate. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that as against his promotion to the cadre of RAS against the vacancies of the year 1981-82, he should have been considered for the said post against the vacancies of the year 1976. This is so claimed on the basis of a decision of this Court dt.5.1.1983 in favour of the petitioner which is reproduced in para 4 of the writ petition. The relevant part of the said order is as under:- “The writ petition is allowed. The seniority list of 'Sadar Kanungos' (Ex.4-A) dated 15.2.74 in so far as it assigns authority to Inderlal Pancholi (Non- petitioner No.3) and Narainsingh (Non-petitioner No.4) above, the petitioner, is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is senior to them. The seniority assigned at No.8 to Bhagwatilal (Non- petitioner No.5) in the said list has already been amended to No.28 vide order Ex.9 dated July 10, 1974. The orders Ex.18 dated October 30, 1980 CW- 366/1996-Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan. Judgment dt.11.9.08 2/4 and Ex.19 dated April 4, 1981 are also quashed and the State of Rajasthan and the Baord of Revenue (non-petitionersNo.1 and 2) are directed to treat the petitioner as confirmed “Sadar Kanungo' from September 30, 1972 vide Ex.1 and to consider his case for promotion on the post of Tehsildar at all stages on the dates, the persons junior to him, were promoted and if found suitable, the petitioner will be promoted on the post of Tehsildar and will be entitled to all consequential benefits in regard to seniority, salary, increments etc. Non-petitioners No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion n the post of Tehsildar within a period of four months from today. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of the writ petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this Court had directed that the petitioner's case may be considered for promotion on the post of Tehsildar at all stages on the dates, the person junior to him were promoted and if found suitable, the petitioner may be promoted on the post of Tehsildar and will be entitled to all consequential benefits in regard to seniority, salary, increments etc. and since the petitioner's juniors were confirmed in the cadre of Tehsildar at a prior point of time, he should also be deemed to have been confirmed along with them and as a consequential benefits in pursuance of the said decision dated 5.1.1983 he should have been considered for CW- 366/1996-Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan. Judgment dt.11.9.08 3/4 promotion for the post of RAS against the vacancies of 1976. 4. These submissions are opposed by learned G.A., who submits that since the condition for promotion to the RAS is the confirmation in lower cadre of Tehsildar and admittedly the petitioner was confirmed as Tehsildar at a later point of time in comparison to his juniors, he could not be promoted to the post of RAS against the vacancies of 1976. When later on he was confirmed as Tehsildar, he was considered against the vacancies of year 1981-82 and was granted the promotion accordingly. 5. After hearing learned counsels and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court finds that at the time of decision of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, the observations of the Court that if found suitable, the petitioner will be promoted on the post of Tehsildar, cannot and does not say that the Rule relating to further promotion to the post of RAS requiring him to be confirmed on the lower post of Tehsildar has to be ignored in any manner. Such a rule as the condition of promotion to the post of RAS could not have been waived or over ruled nor it has been done so in decision on 5.1.1983, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of his later confirmation on the post of Tehsildar, he should have been considered for promotion to the post of RAS against the vacancies of 1976 while admittedly he was not confirmed as Tehsildar on CW- 366/1996-Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan. Judgment dt.11.9.08 4/4 that date is found to be misconceived. 6. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s/7 babulal/-