1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1525/2002. : : Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 20.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.A.K.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Virendra Lodha for the respondent (s). Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that order dated 21.11.2001 whereby representation of the petitioner for his absorption in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd or Jaipur Discom was rejected, may be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner with either of these companies. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was working as Accountant with the respondents and promoted on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. He was unfortunately relived from that post on 19.7.2000 itself in the midnight of which day the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was dissolved and out of which five different companies were formed. Had the petitioner been not 2 promoted and not relived on that day, he would have been entitled to continue at Jaipur Discom. The petitioner has been given number of instances showing that several Assistant Accounts Officers were either transferred elsewhere or retired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was even prepared to forgoing promotion but that argument was not considered by the respondents objectively. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that all such employees, who wanted their absorption in any of the companies was considered objectively by the respondents on the basis of category to which they belong and the absorptions were made strictly as per the seniority and also keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Government. It was argued that not a single person working as Assistant Accounts Officer, who was junior to the petitioner has been absorbed in either of the two companies in which absorption has been claimed by the petitioner ignoring his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage made reference to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Yashpal Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr : DB Civil Special Appeal No.1077/2001 decided on 17.2.2003 and argued that appellant therein was given liberty 3 to again represent the respondents observing that order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition would not be an impediment against the respondents is modifying the order in accordance with law with regard to transfer of the services of the appellant from Jodhpur to Jaipur division. Even if there be any vacancy now available with the respondents, either with the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd or Jaipur Discom, such vacancies have arisen subsequent to 19.7.2000. Consideration by the respondents of either of the option or the representation of the petitioner on that basis cannot be faulted. However, the petitioner, if he wants, is always at liberty to any time represent the respondents, which the respondents shall consider and decide in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in Yashpal Singh, supra. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.19.