After having acquainted ourselves of the companytentions urged and the documents presented along with the said application, and also having perused the Tribunals judgment in the appeal of Brij Raj Kishore Ranga, we are inclined to hold that adequate opportunity was number given to Kothari to present his case, number were the companytentions placed on record by his application carefully companysidered and decided by the Tribunal.
On 13.4.1999, Kothari filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal and sought to be impleaded in Appeal No.
Hussain, who had been appointed by the lateral shifting of the vacancy.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of Kothari, set aside the order dated 28.4.1999 made by the Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal with a direction that Ranga be directed to file amended appeal in the shape of amended cause title and thereafter Kothari be given an opportunity to file a reply to the appeal and that the appeal be heard and disposed of after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
These two candidates independently challenged the appointment of Mohd.
This order disposes of both the appeals of Arvind Kumar Saxena and Arun Kumar Kothari.
On 28.4.1999 the Tribunal allowed Rangas appeal and held that five out of seven of his APA Reports were very good and directed the State to hold a Review DPC for companysideration of his case for promotion to the vacant posts of Superintending Mining Engineer within a period of three months.
436/03 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Hence, the other vancacy of the post was filled by lateral shifting and appointing one Mohd.
The time granted by the Tribunal to hold the Review DPC was made effective from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench, and it was also directed that the performance of the candidates shall be assessed keeping in view both the judgments of the Tribunal.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Special Appeal filed by Ranga and set aside the order dated 26.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Hussain has since retired.
The DPC took the view that there was numberother eligible candidate having an Annual Performance Appraisal Report APA Report in short rating very good for at least five out of seven year, prior to the date of promotion, which was the requirement for appointment on the basis of merit.
Despite the subsequent developments, we are of the view that interests of justice demand that both the companytending parties should be given proper opportunity of presenting their rival cases before the Tribunal.
On 27.3.1999 the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Kothari and held that five out of seven of his APA Reports were very good and directed the State to hold a Review DPC for companysidering his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Mining Engineer for the year 1996 97 on the basis of merit.
2803/99 challenging the order dated 28.4.1999 made by the Tribunal in Rangas appeal.
An interim stay was granted by the High Court in the said writ petition.
That situation numberlonger holds good, as we are informed that Mohd.
Contempt Petition C No.
283/97, within such period as permitted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall companysider such affidavit after giving opportunity of filing a rejoinder affidavit to Brij Raj Kishore Ranga.
283/97 filed by Ranga.
The said appeal is remitted to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, to be heard in accordance with law.
On 5.8.1999, Kothari filed a writ petition, CWP No.
Hussain.
Hussain by their appeals presented before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Tribunal for short .
Ranga challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by his Civil Special Appeal No.
On 3.4.1999, Ranga filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court CWP No.
5931/2005 S.L.P. C No.
5389/2004 Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.
O R D E R arising out of S.L.P. C No.
This is particularly so in view of the fact that when both Ranga and Kothari had moved their appeals before the Tribunal, their immediate object was to challenge the appointment of Mohd.
One of the said vacancies was filled up by appointment of Arvind Kumar Saxena appellant in the appeal arising from S.L.P. C No.
5389/04 .
It appears that today the real companytest for the vacancy for the year 1996 97 is only between Ranga and Kothari for being selected to the vacancy on the basis of merit.
No separate orders are necessary in the appeal of Arvind Kumar Saxena.
There were two vacancies for the post of Superintending Mining Engineer in the year 1996 97, which had to be filled on the basis of merit.
Because of territorial jurisdiction, Rangas appeal was filed before the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, while Kotharis appeal was filed before the Jodhpur Bench.
1176/99 praying that companyvening of the Review DPC be deferred until final adjudication of his appeal before the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal.
283/97, and thereafter the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31.1.2006.
5156/2004 and Contempt Petition C No.
5389/04 and 5156/04 Leave granted.
386/2004 in S.L.P. C No.
5156/04 .
The Review DPC was directed to be held within a period of three months.
We have perused the records and heard the learned companynsel for both sides.
A Departmental Promotion Committee DPC in short meeting was held and it companysidered the officers falling within the zone of companysideration.
5389 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No.
There were two other aspirants to the posts of Superintending Mining Engineer.
