1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1821/1995. : : Shri B.K.Sethi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 26.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Deepak Asopa for the petitioners. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. The petitioners have challenged the validity of part of the amendment dated 28.12.1994 by which the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 was amended so as to make the Office Superintendent working in Indira Gandhi Nahar Board eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, but such amendment was directed to remain enforce only upto 3.13.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that by virtue to amendment, two persons namely; Shri Gyan Chand Jain and Shri B.S.Bareth were promoted on the post of Assistant Secretary, but by the time the turn of the petitioners came, the eligibility which otherwise was available to the petitioners, who otherwise were eligible in the 2 meantime. Even than the respondents by order dated 13.2.1998 promoted the petitioners on ad hoc basis and allowed them to continue as such in 1.7.1999 when he was suddenly reverted due to abolition of the post vide order dated 23.6.1999. Learned counsel contended that reversion of the petitioners and abolition of the post was absolutely illegal and lacking bonafide because the petitioners even otherwise were retired on 31.8.1999 and thus they were deprived of retiral benefits of the post of Assistant Secretary just because they were prevented from working of this post during last two months preceding the date of retirement. Learned counsel contended that petitioners should be declared have retired from the post of Assistant Secretary. Learned counsel in this respect sought to cite certain documents with regard to subsequent developments. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that neither the documents, which are being cited by the petitioners nor the petitioners made any such prayer as long before this Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to make an appropriate direction seeking amendment in the writ petition so as to question the correctness of the order of his reversion and abolition of the 3 post and also make prayer in terms of above. Having regard to the facts of the case specially keeping in view pendency of the writ petition for last so many years instead of allowing the petitioner to amend at this stage. It is considered appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petition with the prayers in terms indicated above. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms indicated above. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 5.