Case: J.C. Bhatia Vs. State of Rajasthan &amp; Others

2. The appellant entered the service of the former Kotah State onas a temporary Overseer. In due course he was promoted as an officiating Assistant Engineer on8, 41 Engineering Subordinates were appointed as officiating Assistant Engineers against permanent posts and 35 against temporary vacancies. Onservices of 17 temporary Assistant Engineers, were terminated and 4 temporary Assistant Engineers, including the appellant, were reverted to their substantive cadre as Engineering Subordinates. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court onchallenging both these orders. The learned Single Judge following his earlier decision in Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petn. No. 79 of 1967 = (AIR 1970 Raj 173  ) allowed the writ petition and held that reversion of the appellant while keeping or promoting junior men in his place was not valid and quashed the orders reverting the appellant as well as the order appointing the 76 Assistant Engineers, already referred to. The State of Rajasthan took the matter on appeal before a Division Bench and the Bench following its decision in Special Appeal No. 57. of 1968 = ( AIR 1971 Raj 191  ) reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petn. 79 of 1967 = (AIR 1970 Raj 173  ) allowed the appeal. That judgment of the Division Bench had been rendered after the judgment in the present case.

Court's reasoning:
We think his argument is wholly without76 appointments in this case were made after consideration and selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee and therefore they cannot fall under Rule 27. Indeed their appointment order does not purport to be under that Rule.The order only says that the appointments are made against the post of Assistant Engineers reserved for promotion quota under Rule 25. The very circumstances under which these appointments have been made would show that they do not fall under Rule 27.If they were appointments under Rule 27 one finds it difficult to understand why a person who has been officiating as an Assistant Engineer for nearly 9 years was reverted while 76 new appointments were being made. Instead of gracefully accepting the result of the decision of this Court in Guman Singhs case as applying to the facts of this case, a wholly pointless argument was sought to be made.The judgment of this Court in Guman Singhs case does not apply to appointments under Rule 27; it can only apply to promotions made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committees.