1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6469/02 Mahavir Prasad Sharma vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 7/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his reversion dated 30.8.2002. Petitioner by the aforesaid order was reverted from the post of Principal which he was holding on ad hoc temporary basis to that of Headmaster. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order of reversion has been made in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not only promoted to the post of Vice Principal but was further promoted to the post of Principal. His promotion was made on the recommendation of the DPC while considering his eligibility and seniority. Such promotion could not be unilaterally 2 withdrawn. It was contended that petitioner while working as Principal retired from the services of the respondents in the year 2002 and now if the order impugned is upheld, he would be adversely affected. Learned counsel argued that even otherwise the petitioner having been promoted on the post of Headmaster by order dated 7.6.193 would be entitled to receive the benefit of selection scale of eight years in view of the Circulars of the Finance Department applicable to the Education Department. It was therefore prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. The respondents have contested the writ petition and filed the reply. In the reply it has been contended that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Vice-Principal on the basis of seniority list dated 1.8.2002. The said seniority list was eventually revised and resultantly some of the persons who were earlier junior to the petitioner were made senior which necessitated the review DPC. The review DPC was held on 14.6.2002 and 2.7.2002. The review DPC was convened with regard to the 3 promotion held for the vacancies of the year 1999-2000. The resultant situation that emerged after the review consideration was that promotions granted to as many as 12 candidates was cancelled. The petitioner was one of such category candidate. Thereafter fresh promotions were recommended. Since the petitioner in the revised seniority list was not placed high, he was not selected for promotion. Consideration of the arguments aforesaid and the minutes of the DPC does indicate that review DPC was indeed convened for 34 promotions of the quota of 1999-2000. Eventually when review consideration was made, the petitioner was not recommended for promotion in the quota of that year. The proceeding also indicates that the review DPC was convened on account of the fact that the seniority list itself, which form basis for promotion against the quota of the year 1999-2000, was revised. There is no challenge to revised seniority list, nor is there any challenge to the action of the respondents in convening review DPC. No challenge has been made to the promotions 4 which have been freshly made consequent upon the recommendations of the review DPC. The facts of the case have not been updated by either of the parties whether petitioner who after his reversion in the year 2002, served the respondents for two more years or again in the meantime promoted. In view of this fact, no interference can be made in so far as the action of the respondents in holding review DPC and passing consequential order based on the recommendations of the review DPC is concerned. More particularly when none of the candidates who were promoted consequently have been impleaded party respondents to the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is justified in submitting that even if the petitioner is promoted again by the time he retired from service, he would have certainly completed eight years of service from the date of promotion to headmaster i.e. 24.6.1993 entitling him to selection scale as per the Circulars of the Finance Department. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the 5 petitioner for grant of selection scale in terms of the Circular applicable to the Headmaster working in the Education Department if the petitioner has again not been promoted prior to the date of his retirement and grant him benefit of such selection scale. It is made clear that whatever benefit the petitioner is receiving by way of pension consequent upon the interim order of stay passed by this Court on 19.9.2002 would not be recoverable from him. However, the respondents would be at liberty to make necessary adjustment by giving effect to the impugned order of reversion notionally from the date it was passed and actual effect thereof shall be given only prospectively from now onwards subject to grant of benefit of selection scale to the petitioner as directed above. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/