1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2672/05 Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 23/9/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.2003 by which the order of appointment on regular basis on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk has been changed from 1989-90 to 1992-93. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid year 1989-90 was allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the judgement of learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition. The respondent passed the order dated 26.6.1992 by which he was made permanent on the post of L.D.C. and against the quota of the year 1989-90. It was contended that the compliance of the judgement passed in the writ petition was made only after the petitioner filed contempt petition. Learned counsel also invited attention of the Court 2 to order dated 15.9.1992 wherein contempt petition was disposed of upon accepting unconditionally apology of the contemner. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the year 1989-90 was allotted to the petitioner only because he in the writ petition has raised a ground that two of his juniors namely Prahlad Rai Saini and Shri Radhey Shyam were promoted on the post of LDC against the quota of the year 1989-90 with effect from 2nd June, 1989. Subsequently, their year of allotment was also changed to the year 1992-93. This was done after determination of yearwise vacancies so that there may not be any anomaly in the pay and seniority. Even if what is contended by the respondents is accepted the fact remains that the aforesaid two persons who were admittedly junior to the petitioner would remain junior even after change of allotment year. When the petitioner was promoted from Class-IV to Class-III on the post of LDC pursuant to the judgement of this Court dated 15.9.1992 against the vacancies of year 1989-90, there was no reason for the 3 respondents to unilaterally change that year of allotment. The respondents in the reply to the writ petition have not come out with the plea that due to determination of yearwise vacancies, no vacancy was available with them in the year 1989-90 and it is owning to such eventuality that the year of allotment of the petitioner had to be changed. Even if that was so, the respondents were required to serve upon the petitioner a notice and after providing him opportunity of hearing, pass the appropriate order. Another plea that was set up by the respondents is that if the quota of year 1989-90 is alloted to the petitioner, this would adversely affect so many other members who became LDC prior to the petitioner and that seniority of such persons would be adversely effected. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.9.2003 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits. If, however, for any justified reason, either on account of non availability of vacancies in the quota of year 1989-90 or if 4 the situation which emerges consequential to redetermination of vacancies is such that grant of quota of 1989-90 adversely affect the seniority of other persons, the respondents would be at liberty to serve a notice and after providing him opportunity of hearing pass fresh order. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/