1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4804/1996 V.D. Sharma vs. RSRTC & Anr. Date of order : 12/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashwani Kumar Jaiman for the petitioner. Shri J.K. Yadav for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 1.1.1996, by which his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was described as temporary. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the promotion order was issued by the respondent on 22.10.1994, it was clearly mentioned therein that petitioner was promoted on recommendation of the D.P.C. and in that order the promotion was never described as temporary or ad hoc. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 1.1.1996 was passed without any notice to the petitioner and behind his back. This order have penal consequences for the petitioner and the same could not be passed without providing him opportunity of 2 hearing. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.-AIR 1978 SC 851. Shri J.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the post against which the petitioner was promoted was a temporary post, which became available on upgradation of lower post of Junior Engineer (Works.) As per the resolution of the RSRTC, promotion against temporary post could not be made on regular basis. It was therefore that the subsequent order was passed on 1.1.1996 and neither opportunity of hearing, nor any notice was therefore required to be given to the petitioner. When pointedly asked, the learned counsel for the parties informed the Court that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Assistant Engineer ever since the impugned order was passed, describing the post as temporary. Promotion in a post which has become available in the cadre, even against temporary post, can be made. The respondent did not decide to 3 revert the petitioner for that reason. In any case, the respondent in the seniority list, the name of the petitioner has been shown higher in seniority than respondent no.2. Now that the petitioner has served on the post of promotion for last 16 years, he is held to retain the benefit of that promotion. Even otherwise, the promotion was made after obtaining due recommendation from DPC. The impugned order dated 1.1.1996 by which the promotion of the petitioner was described as temporary is therefore quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/