Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Limited (RSMM Ltd.), Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited

: Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhodiwal Mr. Yug Singh & Mr. Aditya Sharma on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer:- “(i). Pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2014 (Annex-1) and the order dated 02.11.2012 (Annex-2) to the extent of impugned order of promotion from the feeder post of Manager (F & A) to that of senior Manager (F & A). (ii). Pleased to direct the respondents to consider candidate of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (F&A) against the vacancies for the year 2012-13 and also 2013-14, fairly, impartially and [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (2 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] without being prejudice on account of filing of the present writ petition. (iii). Pleased to direct respondents to accord promotion to the petitioner to the aforesaid post of Senior Manager (F&A) against the vacancy of 2012-13 and 2013-14 and give all the consequential benefits of seniority, pay scale etc. (iv). Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fir may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humbler petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Manager (F & A) vide order dated 20.10.2007 with effect from 30.12.2006. As regards respondent No. 4, he was also promoted with effect from

30.12.2006.

3. After promotion, the respondent issued seniority list of Manager (F & A) and as per the seniority list (Annex-8) name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.1, whereas respondent No.4 has been placed at Serial No.7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while ignoring his seniority vide promotion order dated 14.02.2014, the respondent No.4 has been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2013-14 on the higher post of Senior Manager (Finance & Accounts). Learned counsel submits that the criteria for promotion was on the basis of seniority therefore, by promoting respondent No.4 earlier to the petitioner, the petitioner’s legitimate rights have been prejudiced and he has been deprived of promotion on the higher post, which has ultimately caused him miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner belongs to SC category and one post of Senior Manager (Finance & [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (3 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] Accounts) was available on account of retirement of one another candidate from SC category Shri Mohan Lal on 31.12.2013 Therefore, the post which became vacant w.e.f. 01.01.2014 on account of retirement of SC category candidate should have been filled by another SC candidate. Thus, the promotion order dated

14.02.2014 is arbitrarily illegal and petitioner prayed for hearing of the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the post of Manager (F&A) was devided under the Rules in two groups, Group I and Group II. It was further clarified that only those Manager (F & A) who were possessing the degrees of CA, ICWA etc. were included in Group I, whereas other persons who were not having such higher qualification were kept in Group II. He further pointed out that as per qualification respondent No.4 was placed in Group-I, whereas the petitioner was an officer of Group-II.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per rules, Managers falling within Group I were required to possess only 5 years’ experience for being eligible for further promotion, whereas 7 years’ experience was required for the Managers falling in Group II.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned promotion order has been issued for promoting the respondent No.4 against the vacancies of the year 2013-14, for which eligibility for promotion was assessed as on 01.04.2013. [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (4 of 5) [CW-3295/2014]

8. It has been pointed out that although respondent No.4 was also holding post of Manager (F & A) with effect from

30.12.2006 along with petitioner, yet being an officer of Group-I he was required to possess only five years’ experience, hence he became eligible for consideration after completion of five years in the year 2011. Whereas the petitioner being an officer from Group II and required to possess 7 years’ experience, would become eligible only on 29.12.2013. Thus, as per learned counsel for the respondents on the date (01.04.2013) when the candidature for promotion on the post of Senior Manager (F & A) was being made, the petitioner was not even eligible. Hence, there was infirmity or illegality in the impugned promotion order.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

10. Facts and position of Rules have not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that the post of Manager (F & A) was divided into two Groups. The officers holding higher qualification were kept in Group I whereas those who were not having such higher qualification were put in Group II. The experience criteria for being eligible is also clear that the Group I, officers were required to possess 5 years’ experience whereas such requirement was experience of 7 years for Group II officer.

11. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner falls in the category of Group II officers and required 7 years’ experience for being considered for promotion whereas respondent No.4 was [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (5 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] an officer of Group I and became eligible immediately on the possessing 5 years’ experience.

12. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the date for consideration of eligibility was

01.04.2013 and since by that day, the petitioner did not possess the eligibility criteria of experience of 7 years’, whereas respondent No.4 was fulfilling the criteria, therefore, in view of above no illegality has been committed by the official respondent in promoting the respondent No.4 to the post of Senior Manager (F & A) against the vacancies of the year 2013-14 vide impugned order.

13. In view of above, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. NEERU/19 (ANAND SHARMA),J

: Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhodiwal Mr. Yug Singh & Mr. Aditya Sharma on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer:- “(i). Pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2014 (Annex-1) and the order dated 02.11.2012 (Annex-2) to the extent of impugned order of promotion from the feeder post of Manager (F & A) to that of senior Manager (F & A). (ii). Pleased to direct the respondents to consider candidate of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (F&A) against the vacancies for the year 2012-13 and also 2013-14, fairly, impartially and [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (2 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] without being prejudice on account of filing of the present writ petition. (iii). Pleased to direct respondents to accord promotion to the petitioner to the aforesaid post of Senior Manager (F&A) against the vacancy of 2012-13 and 2013-14 and give all the consequential benefits of seniority, pay scale etc. (iv). Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fir may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humbler petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Manager (F & A) vide order dated 20.10.2007 with effect from 30.12.2006. As regards respondent No. 4, he was also promoted with effect from

30.12.2006.

3. After promotion, the respondent issued seniority list of Manager (F & A) and as per the seniority list (Annex-8) name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.1, whereas respondent No.4 has been placed at Serial No.7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while ignoring his seniority vide promotion order dated 14.02.2014, the respondent No.4 has been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2013-14 on the higher post of Senior Manager (Finance & Accounts). Learned counsel submits that the criteria for promotion was on the basis of seniority therefore, by promoting respondent No.4 earlier to the petitioner, the petitioner’s legitimate rights have been prejudiced and he has been deprived of promotion on the higher post, which has ultimately caused him miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner belongs to SC category and one post of Senior Manager (Finance & [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (3 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] Accounts) was available on account of retirement of one another candidate from SC category Shri Mohan Lal on 31.12.2013 Therefore, the post which became vacant w.e.f. 01.01.2014 on account of retirement of SC category candidate should have been filled by another SC candidate. Thus, the promotion order dated

14.02.2014 is arbitrarily illegal and petitioner prayed for hearing of the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the post of Manager (F&A) was devided under the Rules in two groups, Group I and Group II. It was further clarified that only those Manager (F & A) who were possessing the degrees of CA, ICWA etc. were included in Group I, whereas other persons who were not having such higher qualification were kept in Group II. He further pointed out that as per qualification respondent No.4 was placed in Group-I, whereas the petitioner was an officer of Group-II.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per rules, Managers falling within Group I were required to possess only 5 years’ experience for being eligible for further promotion, whereas 7 years’ experience was required for the Managers falling in Group II.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned promotion order has been issued for promoting the respondent No.4 against the vacancies of the year 2013-14, for which eligibility for promotion was assessed as on 01.04.2013. [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (4 of 5) [CW-3295/2014]

8. It has been pointed out that although respondent No.4 was also holding post of Manager (F & A) with effect from

30.12.2006 along with petitioner, yet being an officer of Group-I he was required to possess only five years’ experience, hence he became eligible for consideration after completion of five years in the year 2011. Whereas the petitioner being an officer from Group II and required to possess 7 years’ experience, would become eligible only on 29.12.2013. Thus, as per learned counsel for the respondents on the date (01.04.2013) when the candidature for promotion on the post of Senior Manager (F & A) was being made, the petitioner was not even eligible. Hence, there was infirmity or illegality in the impugned promotion order.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

10. Facts and position of Rules have not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that the post of Manager (F & A) was divided into two Groups. The officers holding higher qualification were kept in Group I whereas those who were not having such higher qualification were put in Group II. The experience criteria for being eligible is also clear that the Group I, officers were required to possess 5 years’ experience whereas such requirement was experience of 7 years for Group II officer.

11. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner falls in the category of Group II officers and required 7 years’ experience for being considered for promotion whereas respondent No.4 was [2025:RJ-JP:31943] (5 of 5) [CW-3295/2014] an officer of Group I and became eligible immediately on the possessing 5 years’ experience.

12. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the date for consideration of eligibility was

01.04.2013 and since by that day, the petitioner did not possess the eligibility criteria of experience of 7 years’, whereas respondent No.4 was fulfilling the criteria, therefore, in view of above no illegality has been committed by the official respondent in promoting the respondent No.4 to the post of Senior Manager (F & A) against the vacancies of the year 2013-14 vide impugned order.

13. In view of above, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. NEERU/19 (ANAND SHARMA),J