[2026:RJ-JP:1196] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5700/2015 Jagannath Prasad S/o Shri Chhotu Ram, aged about 55 years, R/o Dhani Kalya Wali, Ward No.22, Srimadhopur District Sikar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Secretary Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Sharma Mr. Govind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Deepak Mittal & Mr. Vivek Guwalani Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/01/2026 1. By way of filing of the present writ petition, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of clause No.15.1 of circular dated 04.06.2008 and has further prayed to consider experience of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (for short, 'ACTO') from 1st April, 2008 and accordingly, [2026:RJ-JP:1196] (2 of 6) [CW-5700/2015] consideration for further promotion on the post of Commercial Taxes Officer be made by the respondents for the vacancies of the year 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on 30.05.1983 on the post of Commercial Taxes Inspector Grade-II and after granting the promotion from time to time, on 02.08.2007 he was promoted to the post of ACTO vide order dated 31.07.2007, in compliance whereof, he actually joined on 02.08.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner was granted regular promotion by DPC on the post of ACTO against the vacancies of the year 2008-09. The respondent-Department published seniority list of ACTO in which the name of the petitioner reflects at serial No.42. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that for the purpose of consideration for promotion on the post of Commercial Taxes Officer, 5 years experience is required. He submits that since the petitioner was already holding the post of ACTO w.e.f. 02.08.2007 and his promotion was confirmed through DPC for the vacancy year 2008-09, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service Rules, 1971, his experience is required to be counted from the 1st April of the selection year and, hence, the petitioner was entitled for consideration of his experience from 01.04.2008 to the post of ACTO. 5. Further, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per earlier circular dated 05.07.1975, there was a clear cut provision that in order to meet out the confusion with [2026:RJ-JP:1196] (3 of 6) [CW-5700/2015] regard to computation of experience of different candidates from different dates, decision was taken that 1st April of the year of selection should be kept as crucial date for counting of minimum experience, wherever laid down in service Rules for promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that however, in total ignorance of the Rule as well as earlier circular, one new circular dated 04.06.2008 was issued by the Department of Personnel, wherein a criteria for computing the experience has been changed and instead of computing the experience from 1st April of the selection year, it was directed that the experience shall be considered from 1st of April of the year subsequent to the year in which the selection has been made. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that pursuant to such circular dated 04.06.2008, instead of counting experience of the petitioner from 01.04.2008, the respondents counted it from 01.04.2009, which has made the petitioner ineligible for consideration for further promotion to the post of Commercial Taxes Officer. He also submitted that again, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Department of Personnel has amended the circular dated 04.06.2008 and has restored the erstwhile provision with regard to counting of experience and again the experience of respective candidates is counted from 1st April of the selection year. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal Malakar {D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1052/1998} decided on 18.01.1999, Jai Narain Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 (3) [2026:RJ-JP:1196] (4 of 6) [CW-5700/2015] WLC (Raj.) 537 as well as order dated 23.07.2012 passed in the case of Bhom Singh Mahlawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9106/2008 and submitted that the circular dated 04.06.2008 is not only against the Rules but is also directly under the teeth of the above judgments delivered by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and not maintainable for the reason that on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. on 13.04.2015, the new circular dated 31.03.2015 came into force, whereby clause No.15.1 of impugned circular dated 04.06.2008 was further amended and clause No.15.1.a has been inserted which makes it clear that the new provision amended vide circular dated 31.03.2015 shall not be applicable in respect of DPCs conducted earlier to 01.04.2015. In the instant case, prior to issuance of circular dated 31.03.2015, for making promotion to the post of Commercial Taxes Officer, DPC had already convened and promotion order was issued on 10.01.2015. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioner has suppressed the fact with regard to circular dated 31.03.2015 and insertion of Clause 15.1.a in the said circular. He further objected that the promotion order dated 10.01.2015, whereby the petitioner was not promoted and the other persons have been promoted, has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, nor has he impleaded the persons actually promoted vide order dated 10.01.2015 as party respondents in the instant writ petition. Since, they have acquired [2026:RJ-JP:1196] (5 of 6) [CW-5700/2015] vested right on the promotion post, therefore, behind their back no order can be passed. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General also raised an objection that circular dated 04.06.2008 is a policy decision of the State Government and cannot be put to challenge by the petitioner without pointing out grave illegality or irrationality in the above circular. He submitted that circular dated 04.06.2008 was issued in order to meet out the contingency, where promotion orders were being issued from time to time in a vacancy year and as the higher post required experience of actual working for particular years, therefore, while computing the experience w.e.f. 1st April of the selection year, requirement of having actual working experience could not be completed. Thus, by making a provision of computing the experience on 1st April of the year subsequent to the selection year, there would not be any confusion in counting working experience of the respective candidates. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned circular. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that promotions to the post of Commercial Taxes Officer for vacancy year 2012-13 and 2013-14 took place vide order dated 10.01.2015 and such order is not under challenge in the instant writ petition. Apart from above, the persons selected in promotion vide order dated 10.01.2015 have also not been impleaded as party-respondents in the present writ petition. It is a settled proposition of law that no order can be passed without hearing the affected persons as party to the writ petition. [2026:RJ-JP:1196] (6 of 6) [CW-5700/2015] 14. In addition to above, although earlier to filing of the writ petition, the circular dated 31.03.2015 was issued and enforced by the Government of Rajasthan and newly inserted Clause 15.1.a makes it clear that the DPCs earlier conducted prior to 01.04.2015 shall not be re-opened, there is no reference with regard to such circular in the writ petition, nor the same was placed on record. Such document is a material document and concealment of the same is having material bearing over the merits of the case. 15. As clause No.15.1.a debars reopening of earlier DPC proceedings/review DPC proceedings, therefore, without challenging such clause No.15.1.a, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 16. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and, the same, is hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/11