CW 9123/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9123/2010 Dr. B K Bairwa & Ors Versus State & Ors Date of Order ::: 10/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. GP Kaushik, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by petitioners with the grievance that they were promoted way back against vacancy year 1997-98 on the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee ("DPC") on the post of Asst. Director vide order dt.26/11/97 (Ann.2) despite vacancies being available of earlier years but that has not been considered by respondents while making promotions against vacancy year of 1997-98. Counsel submits that after provisional seniority list (Ann.4) being published on 23/05/2008 in which they were shown for being promoted as Asstt. Director against vacancy year of 1997-98, against which representations were made but were not considered and however, further promotions were made on the post of Dy. Director on the recommendations of DPC vide order dt.09/09/2009 (Ann.7) against vacancy year 2003-04 and the allotment of year for promotion assigned to each of petitioners is in clear violation of Scheme of Rules. Submission made by Counsel is of no CW 9123/10 //2// substance for the reason that promotions were made on the recommendations of DPC way back vide order dt.26/11/1997 (Ann.2) while allotting vacancy year 1997-98 in the cadre of Asstt. Director and if at all they were aggrieved against the year of allotment made by DPC, they were at liberty to assail the same by way of appeal being filed before the Tribunal, which indisputably has not been assailed at any later point of time. As regards submission made by Counsel that objections raised as against provisional seniority list, it will not hold good for the reason that seniority list has been published of the officers working in the cadre of Asstt. Director based on their substantive appointment; and since the petitioners were promoted as Asst. Director against vacancy year 1997-98, they were entitled to be fixed in the seniority list as per their year of allotment recommended by DPC in the cadre. Petitioners have not been able to show that as per year of allotment based on substantive appointment, any person junior to them has been placed above in the seniority - in respect of which objections were raised. As regards further promotions made for the post of Dy.Director on the recommendations of the DPC, since it has been made on the CW 9123/10 //3// basis of seniority in lower cadre and once petitioners were promoted against the vacancy of year 1997-98, certainly they could not have march over those who were promoted prior thereto against vacancy of earlier years. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 9123CW2010Aug10SnrtyDs.doc