Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the order of respondent promoting certain Associate Professors to the position of Professors but didn’t consider the petitioner for the same, a single-judge bench comprising of Ganesh Ram Meena,* J., held that employees have legitimate expectation that whatever the benefits are being extended to an employee who is similarly situated to him/her, the same benefits be also allowed to him/her. The Court directed the respondent to grant the petitioner promotion to the position of Professor under the DACP Scheme, effective from the completion of four years’ service as an Associate Professor. The Court also awarded consequential benefits, including pay and retirement benefits, to the petitioner.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Ophthalmology on 22-01-1998, following due process and recommendations by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). Subsequently, the petitioner joined duty on 14-02-1998. After ten years of service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first career progression effective from 14-02-2008. On 29-10-2009, the petitioner was promoted to the position of Associate Professor and assumed the role on the same day. Upon request, the respondent accepted the petitioner’s voluntary retirement under Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996, with the retirement taking effect from 01-11-2013.
During the petitioner’s tenure, the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, issued a notification on 06-01-2012, introducing new provisions (Rules 24B and 24BB) in the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. These provisions entitled Associate Professors to promotion as Professors upon completing four years of regular service, as outlined in Rule 24B. Subsequently, on 14-06-2013, the respondent issued an order promoting certain Associate Professors to the position of Professors, citing the provisions of Rule 24B and recommendations from the Selection Committee established under sub-Rule 5 of Rule 24BB but the petitioner was not considered. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14-06-2013, the petitioner filed a present civil writ petition challenging the same.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that despite being promoted to the position of Associate Professor on 29-10-2009, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to Professor upon completing four years of service in accordance with Rule 24B and the respondent’s action of not promoting the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cited the principle of parity, emphasising that similarly situated employees should receive similar treatment and benefits.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion should be determined as of 01-04-2014, and since the petitioner had retired before this date, they were not entitled to promotion. The respondent, however, acknowledged that certain other Associate Professors who were promoted mid-year, despite not meeting the same criteria as the petitioner. The respondent contended that Rule 35 of the Rules of 1962 was invoked, for the impugned promotion, which granted the authority power to relax rules for promotions.
Moot Point
Whether the petitioner, having completed four years of service as an Associate Professor, is entitled to promotion to the position of Professor under Rule 24B of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme?
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that the petitioner’s case and that of doctor who was promoted were similar, and both should be treated equally under the principle of parity. The Court emphasised that the respondent should not discriminate against similarly situated employees and should extend benefits consistently. As other doctor had been promoted after completing four years of service, the petitioner should receive the same treatment.
“It is a legitimate expectation of an employee that whatever the benefits are being extended to an employee who is similarly situated to him/her, the same benefits be also allowed to him/her. The respondent has no authority to make a discrimination among the similarly situated employees for no good reason.”
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to promote the petitioner to the position of Professor under the DACP Scheme, with all consequential benefits, within two months.
[Mukesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petition No. 10718/2015, order dated 28-03-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Anita Agarwal, Counsel for the Petitioners
Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, learned AAG with Ms. Malti and Ms. Kratima Divakar, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Various Court cases Order.