Full Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
1. Petitioner Pradeep Kumar Jaswani, who at the relevant time was working on the post of Junior Engineer with respondent Department, filed this writ petition way back in the year 1997 challenging the order dated 13.08.1997 by which he was superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by five of his juniors, who have been impleaded as party respondents No. 3 to 7.
2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that even though the criteria of promotion was seniority-cum-merit but respondents have superseded the petitioner by five of his juniors, whose names appeared at serial No. 332, 343, 392, 397 and 400 in the seniority list published on 11.10.1990, whereas name of petitioner appeared in that very seniority list above them at serial No. 331. It is submitted that according to provisions of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1967, the respondents were required to adhere to the rule of seniority while making promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. Reference in this connection is made to Rule 25 of the Rules, 1967 especially Sub-rule (9) and (12) thereof. It is contended that one of the APARS of the petitioner for the year 1995-96 was not available which fell within the period whereof the record was to be considered by DPC and it is because of loss of that APAR the petitioner suffered and was not promoted.
3. Shri Chetan Bairwa, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that promotions on half of the posts are made on the criteria of merit and on remaining half thereof on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. All private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7, have been promoted on the criteria of merit and petitioner on being not found meritorious, could not secure promotion. However, the petitioner was not senior enough to claim promotion on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. As regards one of his APARS stated to be missing, it is contended that petitioner did not timely send the duly filled in proforma of APAR of the year 1995-96 to the concerned authority and yet his case was considered for promotion as per the instructions of the Government on the subject.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per such instructions, in the case of missing or non-availability of APAR, mode of grading of previous and subsequent year is taken for the purpose of considering of case for promotion.
5. In view of the clarification given by the respondents that none of private respondents, who were junior to petitioner, were promoted on the criteria of seniority-cummerit and that all of them were promoted on the criteria of merit alone. The seniority by itself may not be a relevant factor. However, if private respondents were found meritorious in DPC than petitioner, action of the respondents in promoting them cannot be faulted.
6. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.