IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R Dunga Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B . Civil Writ Petition No.6135/2002 DATE OF ORDER :-25.03.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms.Anisha Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel for the State. BY THE COURT :- The present writ petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 8.7.2001 and 25.7.2002 whereby the respondents decided to revert him from the post of LDC to that of Guard. Petitioner was promoted to the post of LDC on 14/7/1986. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before the aforesaid order is given effect, the petitioner has approached this court. This court by its order dated 13.8.2002 stayed its operation. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order. The order is purported to have been passed on the basis of observations made by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 4.5.2000. Petitioner was not party-respondent in the appeal in which said judgment was passed by the Tribunal. In fact the Tribunal merely directed the department to re-consider the matter keeping in view the fact that the post of Guard is not in the feeder post from which promotion is made to the post of LDC. There was no positive direction for reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner in any case could not be reverted prior to service of notice on him and affording him opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the department had initially sent the proposal to the Government for amendment in the rule so as to include the post of Guard in the feeder cadre post but before any decision was taken, the impugned orders were passed. It was contended that earlier also as many as 29 employees were promoted and many of them stood retired. Petitioner cannot be singled out for being discriminated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of observations made by the Tribunal in its judgment wherein it was observed that the post of Guard is not included in the feeder cadre post and that only class IV employee are eligible for promotion against the post of LDC. Learned counsel submitted that since impugned orders were passed only with a view to rectifying the mistake, opportunity of hearing and service of notice were not necessary. The writ petition may be dismissed. 4. I have given my earnest consideration to the matter. 5. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner was promoted on 14/7/1986 and similarly situated persons had completed more than a decade in the post of promotion. Petitioner could not be reverted back without providing him opportunity of hearing. In fact, his contention is that though the post on which the petitioner was appointed was originally created as the post of class- IV employee but subsequently it was converted into the post of Guard. Further, the proposal of amendment in the rule could not be materisalised and therefore, the impugned orders were passed. Eventually, reversion order of the petitioner has been passed in utter disregard of principal of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the respondents have been promoting the guards to the post of LDC in the past too and many of such LDC having availed the benefit of promotion who have even retired from their services. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of reversion dated 8.7.2001 and 25.7.2002 Annexures 2 and 3 are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. (Mohammad Rafiq),J anil