SBCWP315/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.315/1997 Mahesh Chand Sharma and Others Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 19.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Ms. Shefali Sharma for Shri Rakesh Bhargava, Counsel for petitioners Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondent No.2 District Collector, Alwar Shri Rajendra Soni, Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition was filed by petitioners against order dated 30.07.1996 of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, passed in Appeals No.252/1990 and 253/1990 filed by Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Mahendra Kumar Gupta whereby the learned Tribunal set-aside seniority list dated 25.05.1990. In that seniority-list, petitioners were assigned higher placement than appellants before the Tribunal, namely, Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Mahendra Kumar Gupta. The Tribunal, after making discussion with regard to SBCWP315/1997 // 2 // interpretation of Rule 27(11-A) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957, which was inserted by way of amendment in the year 1982, set-aside the seniority and remanded the matter back to the District Collector, Alwar, with a direction to consider the representation of those appellants, filed on 14.06.1989 and 19.06.1989. Ms. Shefali Sharma, brief holder of Shri Rakesh Bhargava, learned counsel for petitioners, has argued that since the aforesaid amendment was made in the year 1982, the same would have only prospective application and that the order of Tribunal was contradictory because on one hand it has made discussion on merits of the case with regard to applicability of those amended Rules and on other hand it remanded the matter for deciding the representation of appellants before it, therefore the order of remand of the matter was a mere formality because the District Collector is bound to pass the similar order. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, opposed writ petition and supported the order of Tribunal. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned order of Tribunal, I SBCWP315/1997 // 3 // find that although Tribunal may be justified in requiring the District Collector to consider the representation of original appellants before it but, if that was to be done, there was no justification on the part of Tribunal to make a discussion about the applicability, whether prospective or retrospective, of the amendment introduced in Rule 27 by way of sub-Rule (11-A) in the year 1982. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. It is directed that any observation made by the Tribunal with regard to applicability or otherwise of sub-Rule (11-A) of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1957 in respect of such of petitioners who stood transfered to District Alwar on their own request from outside the District, would be taken tentative only for the purpose of deciding the appeal and would not be binding upon the District Collector, Alwar, and he would be free to take his own view of the matter as to applicability thereof, whether prospective or retrospective. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//