LexMANGI LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANGILAL A·· v. ' ' STATE OF RAJASTHAN FEBRUARY 20, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Service Law-Promotion-Post of Assistant Mining Engineer- -f ~ Incumbent holding post of Mines Foreman Grade II and degree of Mining c Engineering claiming promotion directly-Entitlement of-Held: Not entitled since the incumbent was not holding post of Mines Foreman Grade-I or Head Draftsman or Senior Surveyor as required by the Rules-Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960-Column 6. ~, In terms of the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960 D promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer was to be granted from the feeder posts of Mines Foreman Grade-I, Head Draftsman or Senior Surveyor. Appellant, diploma holder in Mining was appointed as a Surveyor. Thereafter, he did his Mining Engineering and claimed promotion directly to the post of A~istant Mining Engineer. At that time, the appellant was worki!1g as Mines Foreman Grade II. Appellant's claim was rejected. He filed writ E petition which was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Column 6 of the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service F Rules, 1960 speaks about experience required for filling up of the post. 'Eligibility' and 'Experience' stand on different footings. For filling up the post by way of promotion, there must exist a channel In absence of any channel, promotion cannot be effected. (Paras 9 and 10) (1004-H; lOOS-B) 1.2. The Rule must be read in its entirety. So read, there cannot be any G doubt whatsoever that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer, the candidate must be a holder of a post of Mines Foreman Grade-I or Head Draftsman or Senior Surveyor. As the appellant did not bold ~ any of the said post at the relevant time, the question of promoting him to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer did not arise. Also the claim of the appellant H 1002 • MANG! LAL v. STA TE OF RAJAS THAN [S.B. SINHA, J.] I 003 has no legal basis since the State informed that degree holder surveyor or A the person working on any equivalent post junior to appellant has never been promoted on the post of Asstt. Mining Engineer against the degree holder quota, because as per the rules, the feeder post for the Asstt. Mining Engineer are Mines Foreman Gr. I, Head Draftsman and Senior Surveyor. [Paras 8, 11 and 12) [1005-C; 1006-C) B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 855 of2007. From Judgment and final Order dated 1.3.2006 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 615/2005. Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik, B.B. Methaila, Arnita Kalka! and Anish Dhingra for the Appellant. Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood and Shaswat Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. c D 2. Appellant herein was appointed as a Surveyor on 31.08.1979. His educational qualification then was Diploma in Mining. He did his AMIE in E Mining in the year 1986. He claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer directly on the premise that he had acquired a degree in Engineering. He at the relevant time was working as Mines Foreman Grade- n. In terms of the rules, promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer was to be granted from the feeder posts of Mines Foreman Grade-I, Head F Draftsman or Senior Surveyor. His representation to appoint him to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer, therefore, was not acceded to. He filed a writ petition before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed. 3. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the G appellant, would submit that keeping in view the rules then operating in the field, the incumbents to the post of Mines Foreman Grade-II should have also been considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. 4. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of H 1004. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. A the respondent,. however, 'would support the judgment. B 5. Column 6 of the Rajasthan Mines & Geological.-Service Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules') lays down the minimum quafffication and experience required for promotion, which is in the following terms : "3 years experience in case of holders-of degree in Mining Engineering or e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.