Skip to content


The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Gordhan Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 326/1981
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)265
AppellantThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
RespondentGordhan Prasad and anr.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
rajasthan revenue accounts subordinate service rules, 1975 - rule 6--persons officiating as tehsil revenue accountant before 1-1-1973 except p--held, error in order of tribunal does not vitiate its final order quashing appointment of s appointed after 1-1-73.;it does appear that apart from shri prabhu dayal sharma, a number of persons, who have been substantially appointed to the service under the order dated 20th december, 1978. had been officiating on the post of tehsil revenue accountant on or before 1st january, 1973. the observations made by the tribunal with regard to the illegality in the appointments made to the service under order dated 20th december, 1978, must be confined only to those persons who have been substantively appointed to the service under order dated 20th..........by order dated 12th october, 1978, respondent no. i, gordhan prasad was reverted from the post of tehsil revenue accountant to the post of patwari, and by order dated 2cth december, 1978, 82 persons, including shri shiv prasad dadich, petitioner no. 4, were confirmed on the posts of tehsil revenue accountant on the basis of screening under proviso (c) to rule 6 of the rajasthan revenue accounts subordinate services rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). the tribunal held that under proviso (c) to rule 6 of the rules, only a person who has been appointed to the post included in the schedule--i on ad hoc/offitiating/temporary basis on or before 1st january, 1973, and was working continuously till the date the rules came into force, rule 28 of the rules for adjudging the.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agarwal, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26th March, 1979, passed by the Rajas than Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 26/1979.

2. The appeal aforesaid was filed by Gordhan Prasad, respondent No. 1, against the orders dated 12th October, 1978 and 20th December, 1978, passed by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue. By order dated 12th October, 1978, respondent No. I, Gordhan Prasad was reverted from the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant to the post of Patwari, and by order dated 2Cth December, 1978, 82 persons, including Shri Shiv Prasad Dadich, petitioner No. 4, were confirmed on the posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on the basis of screening under Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Accounts Subordinate Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Tribunal held that under proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules, only a person who has been appointed to the post included in the Schedule--I on ad hoc/offitiating/temporary basis on or before 1st January, 1973, and was working continuously till the date the Rules came into force, Rule 28 of the Rules for adjudging the suitability on the post held by him The Tribunal held that respondent no. 1 had no right to be appointed to the service under Proviso (c) to Rule 6, because he had not been appointed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on or before 1st January, 1973.The Tribunal further held that all the persons except one Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who were shown to have been appointed under the order dated 20th December, 1978, were appointed on the posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountants after the crucial date, i.e., 1st January, 1973, and that they were also not eligible for appointment to the service on the basis of screening under Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules. The Tribunal, however, held that since Shri Shiv Prasad Dadhich alone was included as a party in the claim filed before it, the Tribunal could not pass any order against the other persons. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the appointment of Shri Shiv Prasad Dadhich to the service was invalid and quashed the same and as regards the other persons who were appointed under the order dated 20th December, 1978, the Tribunal directed that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 should review the appointments strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and to consider suitable amendments in the Rules so as to cover the other reasonable cases also in the purview of Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner have filed this writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri Ajeet Bhandari, the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Jagdeep Dhankad, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

5. The only point urged by the learned Assistant Government Advocate was that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that all the persons except one, viz., Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who had been shown to have been appointed to the service under order dated 20th December, 1978, were appointed on the posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountants after January 1, 1973. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned Assistant Government Advocate has referred to the provisional seniority list of the Tehsil Revenue Accountants, that was issued on 20th December, 1978. The said list gives the dates on which the persons who had been selected for appointment to the service had been officiating on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has pointed out that apart from Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, a number of other persons mentioned it Serial Nos. 2 to 71 of the said list had been officiating as Tehsil Revenue Accountants on or before 1st January, 1973, and that, the Tribunal was in error in holding that all the persons except Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who have been confirmed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant by order dated 20th December, 1978, had been appointed after 1st January, 1973.

6. From the aforesaid seniority list referred to above, it does appear that apart from Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, a number of persons, who have been substantively appointed to the service under the order dated 20th December, 1978, had been officiating on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on or before 1st January, 1973. The observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 26th March, 1979, to the effect that all persons, except Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who had been appointed to the service under order dated 20th December, 1978, were appointed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant after the crucial date, i.e., 1st January, 1973, are not correct and the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to the illegality in the appointments made to the service under order dated 20th December, 1978, must be confined only to those persons who have been substantively appointed to the service under order dated 20th December, 1978, but who were not working on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on or before 1st January, 1973.

7. The aforesaid error in the order of the Tribunal does not, however, vitiate the final order passed by the Tribunal quashing the appointment of petitioner No. 4, Shri Shiv Prasad Dadich, to the service under order dated 20th December, 1978, because, admittedly he had been appointed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant 1st January, 1973.

8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //