[2025:RJ-JP:5784] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.157/2024 Aniruddh Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, House No. 5, Street - Krishna Nagar, Gopal Pura Byepass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Deputy General Manager (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ayush Singh on behalf of Mr.Punit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr.V. P. Mathur JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 by which the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Accountant Grade-I to Accountant was stayed till further orders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was conducted for promotion against the vacancy in the year 2023-24 and the petitioner's case was considered for promotion to the post of Accountant and he was kept at Serial No.10 under the category of Specially Abled Persons vide order dated 14.08.2023. Counsel submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:5784] (2 of 4) [CW-157/2024] case of one candidate, i.e., Smt. Sharda Verma belonging to SC Category was not considered for promotion because of the issue in her Annual Performance Appraisal Report for certain years. 3. Counsel submits that subsequently her case was considered for promotion and she was granted promotion to the post of Accountant against the same vacancy for the year, i.e., 2023-24 and in the seniority list her name was kept below one Ramavtar Bunkar and above one Ramesh Kumar Sayara. Counsel submits that before promotion, the said Sharda Verma submitted an affidavit for consideration of her case against the post reserved for SC candidates and accordingly, her case was considered and she was granted promotion under the SC category vide order dated 22.12.2023, leaving the position under the category of specially abled person vacant. Counsel submits that once the issue has been resolved by the respondents at their own hand, there is no justification with the respondents to keep the promotion order of the petitioner in abeyance for indefinite time, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the said Sharda Verma was considered under the SC category (Annex.4) against the vacancy for the year 2023-24 on the basis of the affidavit furnished by her and accordingly, she was granted promotion vide order dated 22.12.2023 on the post of Accountant under the said category. Counsel submits that subsequently, the same lady submitted an application in the office of respondents for considering her case against the vacancy reserved for Specially Abled Persons, hence under these [2025:RJ-JP:5784] (3 of 4) [CW-157/2024] circumstances, the case of petitioner was not considered for promotion for the post reserved for Specially Abled Person for the vacancy year 2023-24. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is the only candidate in the category of Specially Abled Persons and on the basis of his merit and seniority, his case was considered by the respondents for the post of Accountant against the vacancy year pertaining to 2023-24 vide order dated 14.08.2023. 7. It is worthy to note here that one Sharda Verma belonging to SC category was not granted promotion to the post of Accountant because of certain issue in her APARs. It appears that because of the aforesaid factual situation, the promotion order of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till further order, vide order dated 29.12.2023. It appears that subsequently, the issue of the said Sharda Verma was resolved by the respondents and her case was considered for promotion on the post of Accountant under SC category against the same vacancy pertaining to the year 2023-24 and in the seniority list, her names was just below one Ramavtar Bunkar and just above to one Ramesh Kumar Sayara. It is worthy to note here that the aforesaid order was passed on 22.12.2023, in the meantime, one affidavit was submitted by her, i.e., on 26.07.2023 in order to consider her for the promotional post under SC category and later on, she changed her version to consider her under the category of Specially Abled Persons. [2025:RJ-JP:5784] (4 of 4) [CW-157/2024] 8. Considering the above material aspect of the mater, no heed was paid by the respondents for considering her case under the Specially Abled Category candidates and her case was considered for promotion under the SC category and accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2023 was passed in her favour. 9. Since the said Sharda Verma has been granted promotion under the SC category, the respondents have no justification to withhold the promotion of the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 stands quashed and set-aside. 10. The instant writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Accountant under Specially Abled category with all consequential benefits. 11. Needless to observe, needful exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 12. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/175