Judgment:
Y.R. Meena, J.
1. By this misc. application, it has been prayed that the condition in column 7 of Item No. 6 of Schedule-I of Rules, 1954 be declared ultra vires. It has been further prayed that Government be directed to relax six months more experience in case of the petitioner to promote him on the post of Executive Engineer from the date his Juniors have been promoted.
2. In 1957, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. He was confirmed on that post on 21.6.1963 w.e.f. 21.2.60 and then promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) Irrigation in 1978. Vide Ann.9 dated 20.1.96, his junior Lal Singh has been promoted and petitioner was superseded on the ground that he has not completed two years' continuous experience of non-field post. That amendment was introduced in the year 1989.
3. Mr. Singhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had only 10 months experience of nonfield post, but the posting is in the hand of Government, and if they have not posted him on nonfield post, why the petitioner should suffer. Under the Rules, only one year relaxation can be given. Mr. Singhi submits that this rule is arbitrary. If the State Government does not post him on the non-field post, there is no Justification why the petitioner should suffer for the mistake and arbitrary action of the State. This rule gives arbitrary power to higher authorities and it is in their discretion to post AEN on non-field post. Therefore, this rule should be quashed.
4. Mr. Kumawat, learned Counsel for RPSC and Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for Irrigation Department simply submit that as the petitioner has not completed two years' non-field experience, he is not eligible for promotion though subsequently in the month of July, 1996, they have promoted him in pursuance of direction of this Court.
Column 7 against Item No. 6 of Schedule-I of Rules, 1954 reads as under-
Note--For the purpose of promotion with effect from 1.4.89, the experience prescribed in Col. No. 5 shall include 2 years continuous experience is non-field Division e.g. Design, Quality Control, Planning and Monitoring, Survey & Investigation, Standards & Specifications, Research, Enquiry Technical Assistant to Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer; Chief Engineer, etc. etc.
5. The aforesaid note was introduced in the year 1989 which requires two years' continuous experience on non-field post and at the same time, the posting is in the hand of State Government. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute that posting on non-field post from among the Assistant Engineers is in the hand of higher authorities in Government. It is beyond the control of petitioner to work on the non-field post without posting and without posting he cannot get the continuous experience for two years. Thus the amendment in the Rules in 1989 has given arbitrary and uncanalized powers to the higher authorities and the entire career of the Assistant Engineer that way remained in the hand of higher authorities who are competent to post him on non-field post. If they want to spoil the career of any Assistant Engineer, it is within their power not to post particular Assistant Engineer on non-field post for any time they like and they can retire him as Assistant Engineer taking the shelter of note under Column 7 against Item No. 6 of Schedule-I to the Rules, 1954. Therefore, this amendment by insertion of the note under Column 7 is arbitrary, gives uncanalized power to authorities in Government and contrary to the principles of natural justice, therefore, the amendment made by insertion of note under Column 7 is hereby quashed.
6. It is also evident from the case in hand that petitioner never opposed his posting on non-field post nor his posting on non-field post was in his hand. If the authorities in State Government have not posted him on non-field post for two years, as required under the note inserted in 1989, why the petitioner should suffer for mistake of authorities concerned In the State Government. Therefore, if we see the matter from either of the angle, the promotion has wrongly been denied to the petitioner in the month of January, 1996 when his junior Lal Singh was promoted.
7. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner from the date his junior was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer with all consequential benefits.
8. The misc. application is allowed as indicated above.