[2025:RJ-JP:17322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2309/2002 Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Narendra Kumar, B-334, Janta Colony, Jaipur At Present Working As Executive Officer-II, Nagar Palika, Deeg, Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The Government, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director Cum Deputy Secretary, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Shri Sanwar Mal Meena Executive Officer., Nagar Palika Behror Alwar 4. Shri Girdhari Sharan Sharma Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. 5. Shri Nand Kishore Sharma Secretary., Nagar Parishad, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma with Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Yadvendra Patel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA RESERVED ON :: 17.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 25.04.2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by promotion order dated 07.01.2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, whereby respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been promoted on the post of Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a further prayer to promote the petitioner on the aforesaid post of [2025:RJ-JP:17322] (2 of 5) [CW-2309/2002] Commissioner w.e.f. 07.01.2002 i.e. the date, on which, his alleged juniors have been given promotion. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Officer Grade-V on 29.10.1975. Later on, the aforesaid post was abolished and was merged into the post of Executive Officer Grade-IV on 10.12.1976. As per the petitioner, he was promoted on the post of Executive Officer Grade-III w.e.f. 01.04.1989 against the vacancies for the year 1989. Thereafter, he was further promoted on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II on 01.04.1996 and he was confirmed on the aforesaid post with w.e.f. 01.04.1997. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents issued a seniority list dated 29.01.2001, wherein seniority position of Executive Officer Grade-II as on 01.04.1996 has been shown, in which name of the petitioner is reflected at serial No. 42; whereas names of respondent no. 3 to 5 have not even been included in the seniority list. 4. The petitioner further stated that so far as respondents No. 3 to 5 are concerned, they were promoted on the post of Executive Officer Grade-III vide order dated 04.10.2001 against the vacancies for the year 1997-98 w.e.f. 01.04.1998. 5. Petitioner has also contended that thus, admittedly, respondents No. 3 to 5 stand junior to him and therefore, he has got better and preferential claim of promotion over and above the respondent No. 3 to 5. 6. Petitioner has also submitted that ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, vide order 07.01.2002, the respondents No. 3 to 5 [2025:RJ-JP:17322] (3 of 5) [CW-2309/2002] have been promoted on the post of Commissioner against the vacancies for the year 2001-2002 whereas the petitioner has been left out of consideration. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.01.2002 as well as to promote him on the post of Commissioner. 7 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply to the writ petition contending therein that the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Commissioner is totally misconceived for the reason that as per the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1963’), mode of promotion on the post of Commissioner is 100% by way of merit and therefore, merely on the ground of being senior to respondent No. 3 to 5, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order dated 07.01.2002, more particularly, where the APARs of the petitioner were also not in consonance with the benchmark decided for promotion by way of merit. 8. It has also been stated by the respondents that although experience of 5 years on the feeder of Executive Officer Grade-II is required as per the Rules of 1963, yet the aforesaid Rules also contain power of relaxation as per proviso to Rule24(5) of the Rules of 1963, which states that in the event of non-availability of person, equal to the number of vacancies to be filled in, eligible for promotion to be made, the Committee may consider the persons having less than 5 years service if they are found otherwise eligible and suitable for promotion on the basis of merit alone. [2025:RJ-JP:17322] (4 of 5) [CW-2309/2002] 9. During the course of argument, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 placed a copy of DPC proceedings before the Court, which was taken on record after supplying copy thereof to the counsel for the petitioner. 10. Bare perusal of the DPC proceedings would reveal that there were as many as 8 vacancies of Commissioner for the DPC year 2001-02 and against the aforesaid 8 vacancies, as many as 24 candidates were in zone of consideration, out of which two relates to ST category and five to SC category. The aforesaid posting would also reveal that a decision was taken to grant relaxation of one year to the candidates who were promoted as Executive Officer Grade-II against the vacancies for the year 1997-98. Accordingly in the instant case, where respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who were also promoted as Executive Officer Grade-III against the vacancies for the year 1997-98, were also granted benefit of relaxation of one year experience in accordance with the aforesaid proviso to Rule 24(5) of the Rules of 1963. Counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that after granting of one year experience, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Commissioner against the vacancies for the year 2001-02 as after granting relaxation of one year, they were also possessing the requisite experience with relaxation. 11. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 07.01.2002, whereby respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were promoted on the post of Commissioner against the vacancies for the year 2001-02 on the basis of merit and after [2025:RJ-JP:17322] (5 of 5) [CW-2309/2002] granting relaxation in experience under the Rules, they cannot be said to be lacking in experience and were rather eligible for consideration for promotion. The petitioner having unsuitable APARs was not considered meritorious for promotion. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay application, all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J pcg/3