Skip to content


Chandmal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1328 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1974WLN540
AppellantChandmal Jain
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Excerpt:
.....member, board of revenue, nominated by the chairman is the head of office in respect of first grade office superintendents and second grade stenographers appointed at jaipur, jodhpur, udaipur, kota, ajmer and bikaner. it follows that for all there ministerial posts including the post of superintendent grade, ii, collector is the head of the office as well as head of the department. collectors occur in the list of heads, of departments class ii in schedule a. there is, therefore, no manner or doubt that collector alone was the appointing authority in respect of a superintendent grade ii in his office.;(c) rajasthan subordinate offices ministerial staff rules, 1957 - rules 15 & 18 & rajasthan civil services (c.c. & a.) rules, 1958--rules 12--appointment of office..........board of minor penal revenue ities only on nominated holder; by the chairman of of the post first grade office supdts, and 2nd gra- de stenogra hers in their officesthis item shows that a member, board of revenue, nominated by the chairman is the head of office in respect of first grade office superintendent and second grade stenographers appointed at jaipur, jodhpur, udaiour, kota, ajmer and bikaner. it follows that for all other ministerial posts of superintendent grade ii, collector is the head of the office as well as head of the department. collectors occur in the list of head, of departments class ii in schedule a. there is, therefore, no manner of doubt that collector also was the appointing authority in respect of a superintendent grade ii in his office the govt., order.....
Judgment:

Kansingh, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Chandmal Jain challenging the validity of the order of his reversion from the post of Office Superintendent Grade Ii in the Collectorate, Bundi, (Annexure-9 on record). The petitioner has also challenged the panel Annexure B, prepared by the Revenue Board, Rajanhan for the appointment of Superintendents Grade II in the various Collectorates in Rajasthan.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the District Board of Sawaimadhopur in the year 1951. From 24-1-55, his services were transferred to the State and he was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Treasury Office of Kota. The petitioner continued as Upper Division Clerk till he was appointed as a Stenographer cum-Clerk on 13 2-59. From 14-2 59 he was appointed as a Stenographer Grade III in the pay scale of 120-8-160-10-250 in the Office of the Board of Revenue after due selection under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial. Staff Rules, 1957, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules'. The petitioner joined his appointment, as stenographer Grade III on 14-2-59 The petitioner continued to serve as Stenographer Grade III in the various officers and was eventually transferred under an order of the Board of Revenue dated 11-4-63 in the same capacity in Collectorate at Bundi. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred as Stenographer Grade III to the Collectorate, Chittorgarh. He was again transferred to the Collectorate, Bundi by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1-8-67. The Collector of Bundi appointed the petitioner to officiate as Office Superintendent in his office on 15-7-69 vice one Shri Moti Shanker Jain who had retired. By order of the Revenue Board, Annexure-9, one Shri Ramchandra Nyati, an Assistant in the Office of the Collectorate, Chittorgarh, he was appointed as Office Superintendent Grade II in the Collectorate Bundi and in consequence the petition? was reverted. The petitioner grievance is that while he was eligible for appointment to the post of Office Superintendent Grade II in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules, Shri Nyati, respondent No. 4, was not eligible, On 24-9-63, therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court challenging his own reversion as well as the appointment of Shri Nyati. The petitioner, inter alia, contended tnat with the abolition of the posts of Divisional Commissioner, with effect from 1-6-61 the Government issued an order for conferment of powers of the erstwhile Divisional Commissioners on the Collectors and the Revenue Board respectively as per the order. According to para 5 of the order, all powers of making appointments including officiating appointments which hitherto vested in the Divisional Commissioners were delegated to the Collectors of the District concerned. Further it was directed that for the appointments of Office Superintendents Grade II in the Collectorates the Board will draw a panel of eligible Upper Division Clerks and other ministerial staff for the State as a whole on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the Collectors concerned will select candidates for the post of Office Superintendents strictly in the order in which the names appeared in this panel. It was also laid down that the transfers of Office Superintendents from one District to another was to be made by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner made grievance that till then the Board had not made any panel and, therefore, for this reason also the appointment of Shri Nyati as Office Superintendent Grade II in rhe Collectorate, Bundi was bad.

3. The State filed its reply to the writ petition in January 1971. It was denied that the appointment of Shri Nyati as Office Superintendent Grade II in the Collectorate, Bundi was bad. They further produced order Annexure-B, which was the panel prepared by the Board in terms of the Government order Annexurs-4. The petitioner consequently amended his writ petition & he challenged the validity of the panel Annexure-B. Brides contending that the persons included in the panel were not eligible, he submitted that the order of the Collector could not have been superseded.

4. No fresh reply was filed by the State to the amended writ petition.

5. It will be observed from the above that the first question that Calls for consideration is whether Shri Nyati was eligible to appointment as Office Superintendent Grade II. According to Rule 15(5) of the Rules there are two categories of employees who have been mad? eligible for promotion to the post, of Superintendent Grade II. The first category is that of the persons who have served in connection with the affairs of the State for atleast 10 years including atleast two years as Assistants and 5 years as Upper Division Clerks, and the second category is of persons who have served as Stenographer Grade III in connection with the affairs of the State for atleast 10 years. Therefore, to be eligible Shri Nyati must have been an Assistant; for two years besides remaining an Upper Division Clerk for 5 years amongst others. The respondent State does not dispute the averment that Shri Nyati had not served for atleast two years as an Assistant. He was, therefore, not qualified for promotion as Office Superintendent Grade II. Since Shri Nyati by now retired it is not necessary to pass any order now.

6. The next question is whether the petitioner was qualified to hold post. The petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer Grade III on 14.2.59. He had served as Stenographer III for more than 10 years before he was appointed as Office Superintendent Grade II by the Collector. The petitioner was, therefore, eligible for appointment to the post from which he was reverted consequent to the appointment of Shri Nyati.

7. The third and the last question, is about the panel prepared by the Revenue Board for appointments of persons as Office Superintendent Grade II in the State of Rajasthan. It is the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which lay down as to in what categories the civil servants would be divided in the State of Rajasthan and who would be their appointing or disciplinary authorities. According to rules all appointments to the ministerial services and class IV services shall be made by the Head of Office subject to the rules and instructions issued by the Head of the Department in that behalf. One has to turn to the Schedule to these Rules to find on* as to who was the Head of the Office or the Head of the Department for that matter so far as Office Superintendents Grade II in the Collectorates were concerned. The relevant item in the Schedule-B reads as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLASS IV SERVICES MINISTERIAL SERVICES

-------------------------- ---------------------------

Department Office Head of Next higher Head of Next higher

Office authority Office Authority

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 3 4 5 6

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32 Office Registrar Chairman Registrar Chairman

Revenue of Board

Departm of Revenue

ent

(1) Distr (1) Member In State

Revenue ict Collector Boar of respect Gove-

Revenue of 1st Ment

nominat Grade

ed by Office

the Supdts,

Chairman and 2nd

Grade

Stenogr

aphers

appoint

ed at

Jaipur,

Jodhpur

, Ud-

aipur,

Kota,

Ajmer

and Bi-

kaner,

Member

Board

of

Revenue

nom-

mated by Ch-

airman

Collectors in Member,

respecto of Board of

minor penal Revenue

Ities only on nominated

holder; by the Chairman of

of the post

first Grade

Office Supdts,

and 2nd Gra-

de Stenogra

hers in their

Offices

This item shows that a member, Board of Revenue, nominated by the Chairman is the Head of Office in respect of first grade Office Superintendent and second grade Stenographers appointed at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaiour, Kota, Ajmer and Bikaner. It follows that for all other ministerial posts of Superintendent Grade II, Collector is the Head of the Office as well as Head of the Department. Collectors occur in the list of Head, of Departments Class II in Schedule A. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that Collector also was the appointing authority in respect of a Superintendent Grade II in his Office The Govt., order Annexure-IV under part-5 contemplates that it is the Collectors concerned who are to select candidates for the posts of Office Superintendents strictly in the order in which names appear in the panel prepared by the Board of Revenue Now, so for as the preparation of a panel is concerned, it is with a view to better informing the mind of the appointing authority. There is no statutory sanction for the preparation of such a panel by the Board of Revenue, nevertheless there is no prohibition either and therefore, it is open to the State Government to lay down an administrative instruction for the preparation of a panel so that the mind of the appointing authority can be better informed about the suitability of the person to be appointed as Office Superintendent Grade II in his office. It goes without; saying that in preparing a panel the Revenue Board must include all eligible persons who are found suitable for appointment as Superintendents Grade II. As I have already quoted the relevant item from the Schedule to the Classification, Control and appeal Rules, 1958, for Superintendent Grade I, the Revenue Board is both the Head of the Office & necessarily a Head of the Department but we are not concerned with the appointment of any one frame as a Superintendent Grade I. Be that as it may, the panel placed on record does not include such of the Stenographers Grade III who had become eligible for promotion as Superintendent Grade II in the Collectorates.

8. For the above reasons, I allow the writ petition in part and quash the order of the petitioner's reversion from the post of Office Superintendents Grade II to the electorate. Bundi and direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue till a proper selection according to rules is made.

9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


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