If an enquiry was pending against him, the Tribunal observed his name should have been kept in sealed companyer after companysidering him and if numberenquiry was pending against him then clear recommendations should have been recorded by the D.P.C. in respect of the appellant.
Present Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Honble Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan S. Bhati M.K. Singh and Ms. Musum, Advs.
He companyplained that his junior, Ashok Kumar Sanvaria, has been promoted while he himself has been overlooked wrongly.
for the appellant Sushil Kr.
The order of the tribunal was challenged by the.
Jain and A.D. Dhamija, Advs.
The appeal was allowed accordingly and the Government was directed to place the respondents case for promotion to the selection scale against the vacancies for the year 1990 91 before the DPC.
The respondents case was that on the date of D.P.C., there was numberenquiry pending against him.
For Respondents.
The DPC was directed to record its clear recommendations about the respondent.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
The respondent, Sriram Verma, is an officer belonging to the Rajasthan Administrative Service.
By an order dated March 24, 1991, thirteen officers were selected and appointed in senior pay scale subject to review and revision for the year 1980 91 as prescribed in the separate list mentioned in Rule 28 B b of Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
The respondent, Sriram verma, who is also a member of a Scheduled Castes preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent holding that a perusal or the written reply filed by the Government does number very clearly indicate whether the appellants case for promotion was companysidered by the D.P.C. or number The Tribunal observed that during the arguments, numberdoubt, the advocate for the State did mention that an enquiry was pending against the respondent but that assertion was squarely denied by the respondents companynsel.
Nine of officers were mentioned under the heading On the basis of seniority and merit and four officers were mentioned under the heading On the basis of merit.
Among the nine officers promoted on the basis of seniority and merit, Sri Ashok Kumar Sanvaria Scheduled Caste was mentioned at Sr.
The learned advocate appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted before the Tribunal that an enquiry was pending against the respondent under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classifications Control and Appeal Rules, 1958 and also because the impugned promotions were in the nature of urgent temporary promotions, the respondent therein was number promoted.
Thirteen officers selected and appointed under the said order were mentioned under two categories separately.
