LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus TARACHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 11-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

.ยท ~ 
~ 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
TARACHAND AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 11, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
B 
r 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
.. 
Se1Vice Law : 
Rajasthan Administrative Se1Vice Rules, 1954 : 
c 
R.28-B-f'romotioit-Service record of official for period under con-
sideratio11-Amendment made i11 the ntle subsequent to promotion-Held, the 
mle requires that record of officer should be outstanding or co11sistently very 
good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under 
co11sideratio1t-Amendment i11 the mle made on 30.11.1991, being subsequent D 
., 
_.,. 
to orders of promotions could not apply to the cases prior to the amendments 
came into force. 
Shambhu Si11gh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 431; 
relied on. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 3551 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.93 of the Rajasthan High 
.): 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 6038 of 1992. 
F 
Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
The controversy raised in this case is already covered by a judgment G 
of this Court reported in Shamblm Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 
...._,,. 
(1995) supp. 2 SCC 431, wherein this Court, on consideration of rule 28-B 
. 
of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 and its explanation as 
it stood prior to November 30, 1991, had interpreted and held that the rule 
requires that the record of the officer should be outstanding or consistently H 
1157 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period 
under consideration. The view of the High Court, therefore, was upheld 
and held that the amendment made on 30-11-1991, being subsequent to the 
orders of promotions which were challenged in those cases could not apply 
to the cases prior to the amendment came into force. The same ratio 
B applies to the facts in this case. Therefore, we do not find any ground 
warranting issuance of notice for interference. 
The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 
R.P. 
Petition dismissed.