1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4047/2006 Arun Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 22nd April, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Pramendra Bohra, for the petitioners. Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, for the respondents. .... By the office order dated 22.5.1978, passed by the Director of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioners were selected for admission to the certified Radiological Assistants (Radiographers) Training Course at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur with the following terms:- “1.The duration of the course will be of 18 months. 2.They will have to execute a bond to serve the Govt. of Rajasthan for a period of five years after successful completion of the training course, failing which they will have to refund the entire amount paid to them by the way of stipend etc. 3.Only after executing the above mentioned bond they will get Rs.60/- (Rs.Sixty only) p.m. as stipend during the training period. 4.They will have to submit a certificate of their physical fitness certifying that they have no such disease or physical defect which is considered to be a disqualification by the Government and further certifying 2 that they are fit for streneous training and duties.” After completion of the training, appointment was accorded to the petitioners as X-Ray Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.355-570 for a period of six months. Subsequently promotion was also given to the petitioners as Assistant Radiographers and then to the post of Radiographers as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1965”). A petition for writ (SB Civil Writ Petition No.353/1991) was filed by the petitioners for the relief in following terms:- “i- respondents may be directed to provide seniority and all other benefits to the petitioners for the post of Radiographer from the date when they joined training for the said post after due selection forthwith. ii- writ petition may be allowed with costs throughout. iii- any other relief which is considered just and proper by this Court may be granted in favour of the petitioners.” The writ petition aforesaid came to be decided on 28.4.1994 with a direction to the respondents to consider the suitability of the petitioners on the post of Radiographers to give them 3 benefit of the post, if they are found suitable. Pertinent to note here that in the petition aforesaid no reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, as such the statement made in the petition to the effect that “the petitioners had been selected for appointments on the post of Radiographers and they had also executed the bond for working on that post for a period of five years” remained uncontroverted. In pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 28.4.1994, a representation was submitted by the petitioners, but that came to be rejected on 21.2.1997 with specific assertion that there was no occasion to appoint the petitioners as Radiographers from the date of their initial appointment as X-Ray Technicians. The promotion thereafter was also given to them as Assistant Radiographers and Radiographers. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, as communicated under the communication dated 21.2.1997, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, but that came to be rejected on 23.6.2006, this petition for writ is preferred, therefore. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the fact regarding appointment of the petitioners as Radiographers was never disputed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.353/1991, therefore, a direction was given to consider suitability of the petitioners on the post of Radiographers, thus, now it 4 is not open for the respondents to say that no appointment was given as Radiographers. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the appointments were given to the petitioners as X-Ray Technicians and they were subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Radiographers and Radiographers, thus, they cannot be treated as Radiographers from the date of their initial appointment. Heard counsel for the parties. I have also called for and examined the record of SBCivil Writ Petition No.353/1991. As a matter of fact no appointment was ever given to the petitioners as Radiographers and they also never executed any bond for working on the posts referred above for a period of five years. The order dated 22.5.1978 is an order selecting the petitioners for admission to the Certified Radiological Assistants (Radiographers) Training Course and the bond was executed by the petitioners only to the extent that they will serve the Government of Rajasthan for a period of five years after successful completion of the training course. There is no document available on record to establish that the appointment was ever given to the petitioners or any representation was made to the respondents for giving appointment to the 5 petitioners as Radiographers after completing the training concerned. The order of appointment is dated 12.3.1981 and that in quite unambiguous terms refers for appointment of the petitioners as X-Ray Technicians. For X-Ray Technicians, channel of promotion is prescribed under the Rules of 1965 and the petitioners have availed those promotions too. The petitioners as a matter of fact were appointed to the post of X-Ray Technicians only and as and when they become eligible to be considered for promotion, their candidature was considered and the appointment by way of promotion was also accorded to them. The claim of the petitioners, therefore, is absolutely ill-founded and no error is committed by the tribunal while rejecting the appeal preferred by them. This petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.