1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 461/1999 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5505/1989 Suresh Chand Arya Versus The Director, Agriculture Marketing Produce Department & Others. Date of Judgment: 02.04.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Hon'ble Mr. G.S. Sarraf,J. Mr. M.C. Taylor, for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This special appeal is directed against impugned order dated 08th August, 1997 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner against order dated 07th December, 1989, whereby junior persons to the petitioner were given promotion on the post of U.D.c. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Single Judge committed an illegality in not considering that criteria for promotion on the post of U.D.C. from the post of L.D.c. was seniority- 2 cum-merit and not merit-cum-seniority, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. 4. He further contended that although, two punishment orders of censure were passed against the appellant on 9th April, 1983 and 12th August, 1985, but his appeals against those orders were pending on the date of consideration for promotion of the appellant as well as other similarly situated persons. Therefore, the orders of penalty should have been ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Single Judge has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in detail and has observed that Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Mal Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992 (2) WLC 1 held that even a minor punishment would be a ground for not giving promotion. Even if we assume that criteria for promotion on the post of U.D.c. from the post of L.D.C. was seniority-cum- merit and not merit-cum-seniority, then also it was a relevant fact that minor penalty was imposed against the appellant twice. 3 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that both the appeals filed by the appellant against orders of penalty of censure have been dismissed and thereafter he has not challenged those orders and they have attained finality. 7. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (G.S. Sarraf),J (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj Item No. 20.