1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5537/1997 Jameel Ahmed vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 23/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Nitin Jain for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Chandel, Deputy Government Counsel for the respondent. Shri M.L. Kumawat for respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of his reversion dated 23.5.1994 (Annexure-5) by which he was reverted from the post of Mendor-cum-Binder to that of Assistant Employee i.e. Class IV employee on the basis of consent given by him. The reversion of the petitioner was made on account of the fact that the post of Mendor-cum-Binder was abolished. Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the letter of recommendation sent by Director, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Arabic Persian Research Institute, Tonk dated 18.9.1995 and contended that in that letter it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was initially 2 appointed as Class-IV on 18.8.1976 and was promoted to the post of Manuscript Attendant on 17.7.1981. When he was further promoted to the post of Mendor-cum-Binder on 14.8.1991 on account of the fact that respondent no.3 who was otherwise serving on the post of Class IV was promoted to the post of Manuscript Attendant. The nature of consequence of abolition of post of Mendor- cum-Binder would result in reversion of the respondent no.3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner initially gave in writing that he may be adjusted against the post of Manuscript Attendant by his application dated 29.4.1994. However, the respondents subsequently under force got another application dated 11.5.1994 written from him that he was agreeable to his reversion to either of the two posts whether Manuscript Attendant or Class IV employee. It is submitted that there is no question of petitioner giving consent for such reversion on the basis of supposed abolition of posts on 11.5.94, whereas the post was actually abolished on 15.6.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for a relief 3 of grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services. The respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the natural consequence of abolition would have been to declare the petitioner surplus and in that event he could have been required to move outside Tonk and this fact was fully known to the petitioner. It is therefore that by his application dated 11.5.1994 he gave in writing that since the regional office at Ajmer has been closed down and the post of Mendor-cum-Binder was also abolished and since his promotion on the post of Mendor- cum-Binder was made on ad hoc basis, his family circumstances would not be such that he would move outside Tonk. He therefore requested that either he should be reverted to the post of Manuscript Attendant or to the post of Class IV and he would have no objection to such reversion, neither would he made any claim with regard thereto, nor challenged any such action. Learned counsel submitted that the order Annexure-5 was passed on application dated 11.5.1994 and not on the application dated 4 29.4.1994. If the decision to that extent was taken earlier and consequential order of abolition was passed later then it would not mean that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the post of Mendor-cum-Binder was abolished because he knew that in that event he should be declared surplus and would be absorbed outside. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the action of the respondents was based on own application of the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner consented to his reversion to the post of assistant employee i.e. Class IV employee and that he could not expect that to accommodate him, the respondent no.3 should have been further reverted, who otherwise secured promotion in the vacancy because by promotion of the petitioner, the consequence of any post being abolished has to be declaration of incumbent working thereupon as surplus and then in that event surplus employee may have to be absorbed in any other department. If the petitioner understood this implication and therefore 5 gave in writing that he is agreeable to his reversion even on the post of Class IV employee, it cannot be expected that such application must have been obtained from him by duress or pressure. In so far as however the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of selection scale is concerned, the petitioner has made specific prayer for grant of benefits of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service but the respondent in their reply are completely silent about the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the Government Circular dated 25.1.1992 as modified from time to time, therefore, to that extent the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. While prayer clause (i) is rejected, the writ petition is allowed in respect of prayer clause (ii). The respondents are directed to grant benefits of selection on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service as the case may be if not already granted. The petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% on the arrears 6 payable to him on this count for the period of delay. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/