9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appointment validity based on Rules 9, 23, 23-A, and 24-A of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building and the Roads Branch) Rules, 1954. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the appointment of certain individuals, B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena, by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for nine vacancies existing and anticipated as of April 1, 1995. The central issue was whether their appointments were made in accordance with the Rules, specifically Rule 9, Rule 23, Rule 23-A, and Rule 24-A of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers Rules. The contention was that the appointments were based on the criteria existing at the time of selection by the DPC, which was prior to the introduction of Rule 24-A through statutory amendment on July 24, 1995. The State argued that the appointments were made in accordance with the existing Rules and the selection criteria in place at the time of selection by the DPC. However, the contesting respondents contended that the amended Rules should have been applied retroactively to appointments made after the introduction of Rule 24-A. The Court considered the applicability of the amended Rules and the criteria for promotion specified in the relevant columns against vacancies existing as of April 1 of the selection year. The Court clarified that appointments made to vacancies existing before the amendment of the Rules should be governed by the original Rules, while vacancies arising after the amendment should be filled in accordance with the amended Rules. The judgment emphasized that appointments should be made based on the Rules in force at the time the vacancies arose. The Court highlighted the option for the Government or appointing authority to either make temporary promotions or revise the panel prepared in accordance with Rule 24-A (11-B) for appointments. The Court held that appointments of individuals like B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena, made prior to the amended Rules coming into force, should be considered temporary pending a fresh selection process based on the amended Rules. The judgment also addressed the case of another individual, B.L. Kankas, who was appointed after the amended Rules came into force and had already retired, ordering his promotion to remain undisturbed. The Government was directed to constitute a new DPC to consider eligible candidates as per the Rules and make fresh selections within a specified timeframe. The benefits granted under the impugned order were not to be revoked, but seniority and other criteria were subject to the Government's decision.
|
