DBSAW No.379/2009 State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Sharma 1 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.379/2009 State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Sharma DATE OF ORDER : - 13.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. Dr. G.R. Kalla, Government Counsel for the appellants. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2008 by which the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the order dated 15th March, 2001 reverting the petitioner from the post of LDC to Class IV employee has been quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Government issued circular dated 5th Sept., 1997 which provided that Class IV employees who have passed Prathama Examination before 28th June, 1998 be promoted to the post of LDC as per their seniority and their promotion will be subject to the decision of SBCWP No.7328/1992 – DBSAW No.379/2009 State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Sharma 2 Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan. In this way, the petitioner was promoted and decision rendered in Prem Kumar's case was considered in Kistoor Singhs's case (DBSAW No.137/1996) wherein it was held that the candidate who possesses the qualification as prescribed in the rules at the time of appointment shall be eligible for appointment. In view of the above fact, the petitioner's promotion to the post of LDC from the Class IV employee was contrary to the rules and, therefore, that was set aside vide order dated 15th March, 2001. Learned Single Judge carefully considered all the aspects of the matter and, thereafter, followed the judgment of Ratan Puri's case. The passage from the said judgment was quoted by the learned Single Judge, which runs as under : - “...Undoubtedly, the petitioner had been promoted under the belief that he was eligible for promotion and possessed the requisite qualification for the same, which had, at a very later stage, been declared as an ineligibility after derecognition. In obtaining the promotion, there has been no misrepresentation or fraud on the DBSAW No.379/2009 State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Sharma 3 part of the petitioner, rather the respondents themselves understood the law that petitioner was eligible for promotion. The substantial justice requires that petitioner may not be reverted after having an experience of nine years on the promotion post. Rather the respondents ought to have considered to apply the said judgment prospectively and not disturbing the promotions made prior to the said judgment.” The respondent-employee himself was not guilty of any fraud or any mis-representation and he already worked on the post by now for 10 years, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2008. Hence, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. (VINEET KOTHARI),J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-