1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5905/2006. Ramesh Chand Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1837/2007. Ramdhan Mali & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation. : : Date of Order 17.8.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Ashish Sharma ] Mr. Shobhit Tiwari for the petitioners. Mr. Indrajeet Singh with Mr. Sudeep Mathur ] Mr. K. K. Sharma with Mr. Tapsavi Vashistava for the respondents. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Mr. S. D. Khaspuria, Addl.Govt. Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of reversion passed by respondents on the basis of interpretation of amendment made in sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. In Writ Petition No.5905/2006 the petitioner Ramesh Chand Rao, who was initially appointed as Class-IV employee with Agriculture 2 Marketing Committee, Gangapur was promoted on the post of LDC on 28.8.1992 on the basis of qualification of 'Prathama and Madhyama' held by him, which was awarded by Hindu Sahitya Sabha, Allahabad and on the basis of Higher Secondary Examination, which he passed in the year 1987. Respondents by order dated 6.3.2006 however reverted him on the premise that he passed the Secondary Examination only in one subject from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereas the basic qualification of 'Prathama and Madhyama' held by him were now no longer recognised as equivalent. Further contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that as per Schedule-A appended to Rajasthan Agriculture Produce (Employees) Service Rules, 1975 the minimum qualification required is Secondary of high school and, therefore, he was not eligible for not being promoted. In Writ Petition No.1837/2007, there are as many as six petitioners, who were appointed as Class-IV employees on different dates. They too possessed the qualification of 'Prathama and Madhyama' referred to and were promoted on the post of Store Keeper vide order dated 25.5.1987. However, they too were reverted by order dated 6.3.2007 on the premise that their qualification of 'Prathama and Madhyama' was no longer treated as equivalent to matriculation in view of Larger 3 Bench judgment of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma & 13 Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board : 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.), 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have cited Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mani Lal Hoshi : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.828/2002 decided on 25.11.2002 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagirath : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.755/2001 decided on 31.1.2003 and relying on these two judgments the Division Bench of this Court later decided on appeal filed by Baldev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 2008 (4), 673. Learned counsel also relied on number of other decisions by different Single Benches of this Court on the same controversy. The crux of the argument is that writ-petitioners were originally promoted on the post of LDC/Store Keeper Grade-II on the basis of 'Prathama and Madhyama' qualification held by them which at the relevant time was considered as equivalent to secondary for the purpose of their eligibility. Subsequent derecognition of the same by amendment in the relevant rules is bad in law. It was argued that Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments held that when promotion was granted to the petitioners more than a decade and it would be now unjust and harsh upon them to revert if they served sufficient length of 4 service i.e. 15 years on the post of promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that in either of the service rules, the qualification is mentioned and, therefore, even if by mis- interpretation of the Rules they were deemed eligible on the basis of recognition granted to the qualification as Prathma and Madhyama by the State Government, that would not remove deficiency. In so far as their eligibility is concerned, it is contended that in any case that recognition has now caused to exist because the Government by notification dated 28.6.1985 amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the said Rules to provide that expression “or must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent to that Matriculation” shall be deleted or shall always be deemed to have been deleted w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Although subsequently the Government by notification dated 5.12.1987 substituted the date 1.4.1985 by 28.6.1985, but in any case, after 28.6.1985 the qualification of Prathma and Madhyama held by petitioners would no longer be treated equivalent to matriculation and, therefore, petitioners were not eligible for promotion on any date thereafter. 5 5. Though the arguments, which have been raised by both the counsel have been noticed because they arise out of present case, but what is clearly evident from the stand taken by respondents in their counter affidavit and on perusal of the impugned orders and the respondents proceeded to revert the petitioners singularly on the basis of interpretation of judgment referred by Larger Bench in Shanker Lal (supra) and based on the amendment made by the Government. All such arguments were noticed, rather extensively, in the above referred to Division Bench judgment the last of which i.e. Baldev Singh (supra) was incidentally authored by me :- “In view of the position of law noticed above, the appellants who were promoted on the basis of qualification of 'Prathama' as per the interpretation of law which held the field at the relevant time, could not be reverted. Interpretation of law pronounced by the Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma supra has to, therefore, have prospective application quo the cases in which rights got crystallized in favour of the employees by grant of promotion. We are inclined to agree with the view expressed in earlier division bench judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mani Lal Joshi supra and also hold in the present that it would be harsh and unjust to the appellants, who have by now completed almost one and a half decade from the 6 date of promotion if they are now reverted again to the post of Class-IV.” Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to substantiate their case by giving names of certain employees, who like them were promoted on the strength of same qualification and were not yet later reverted and were allowed to continue, I need not however go into that aspect because these matters are being decided upholding the first argument. In the light of above discussion, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders 6.3.2006 and 6.3.2007 in the case of each of petitioners are declared illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Petitioners are held entitled to consequential benefits throughout. Compliance of this judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.37 & 38.