1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2005/1994. : : Ram Prakash Pandey Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 14.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Government Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.3.1994 whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Vice Principal to that of Teacher Grade-II. According to the petitioner, he was promoted by order dated 2.12.1993 and accordingly he joined the post of promotion, but suddenly without any notice to the petitioner he was reverted by order dated 17.3.1994. Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this order is liable to be quashed because the promotion of the petitioner was made on recommendation of DPC as per Rule 24 (2) (a) of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970. 2 Shri B.L.Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel has contested the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion. According to him, the petitioner was having the qualification of B.Sc. and B.Ed. whereas according to Rules of 1970 he was required to posses the qualification of post graduation and requisite training i.e. M.A./M.Sc. and B.Ed. Since name of the petitioner appeared in the zone of consideration, it was inadvertently included in the eligibility list and which is why, his case was placed for consideration of DPC. When subsequently this mistake was discovered, the order of reversion was passed to rectify the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that the petitioner has on the strength order of stay passed by this Court worked on the higher post i.e. Vice Principal and in fact has retired on 31.8.1996 while so working and, therefore, it would be harsh upon him if now the salary and other benefits paid to him are recovered, which he withdrew while actually working on the higher post. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid, I find that though there may be some substance in the argument that before passing reversion order, opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner, but at 3 the same time he is not in a position even now to rebut the fact that he was not eligible for promotion. While, therefore, not interfering with the order of reversion, it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner of the differential amount of salary, which he received by virtue of his actual working on the post of Vice Principal whether paid by way of salary or increased pension on that account but the respondents would be at liberty to prospectively affect the order by making revision in the payment of his retiral benefits and pension. In the result, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.4.