1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.36/1993. : : Tribhuwan Chandra Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 13.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.D.K.Bhardwaj for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Government Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Tribhuwan Chandra with the prayer that the respondents be directed to regularise the period of his reversion from November, 1969 to April, 1970 from the post of Senior Teacher to Teacher Grade-II and accordingly treat him to have continued on the post of Senior Teacher from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.7.1963. He has further prayed that seniority be assigned to him accordingly and all the reliefs, granted to the persons below him in seniority, should also be given to him with regard to increments with interest. 2 The petitioner expired during the pendency of the writ petition and the present petition is being prosecuted by his widow and son. Shri D.K.Bhardwaj learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Teacher though on adhoc basis for a period of six months vide order dated 22.7.1963 or till the duly selected candidates were appointed by RPSC. He could not be, therefore, reverted to the post of Teacher Grade-II. Initially when the petitioner was reverted in September, 1965, he represented and within one month thereof, again he was restored back on the post of Senior Teacher in October, 1965. The petitioner was then transferred to Alwar and posted in Government Yashwant Higher Secondary School where he worked about four years. Suddenly, however, he was again reverted by order dated 15.11.1969 whereas appointment of the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher already stood extended upto 31.12.1969. While the petitioner on reversion was posted to another school at Maujpur, the post of Senior Teacher in the school at Alwar was still laying vacant as no senior teacher was posted there against. Subsequently however, the respondents vide order dated 14.4.1970 again appointed the petitioner on the post of 3 Senior Teacher. These two artificial breaks have caused loss of increments to the petitioner for four years inasmuch as he has also suffered the loss of seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Mahavir Singh whose name appeared at Serial No.1954, Dinesh Chand Shrivastava at Serial No.1983 and Ramendra Singh at Serial No.1986 in the seniority list were much junior to the petitioner because they were appointed on the post of Senior Teacher after him. But they were not reverted and continued on the post of Senior Teacher, with the result, they have received all the benefits. Learned counsel also referred to the case of one Bhurekhan, who figured at Serial No.2599 and argued that he too was granted all the benefits and continuity on the post of Senior Teacher. Illegality in the case of petitioner was although subsequently removed by reinstating him on the post of Senior Teacher on which he was directly recruited, but the petitioner was not granted any relief in so far as the loss of four increments and continuity of service on higher post is concerned. Shri B.L.Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that since there was no post of Senior Teacher from 15.11.1969 to 14.4.1970, the petitioner could not be continued on such 4 post. Subsequently when the post became available he was again promoted. It was argued that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher was made subject to specific condition that this was adhoc and as and when duly selected candidate becomes available, he shall be liable to be reverted. As regards the case of Bhure Khan, it was clarified by the learned counsel that the order in his case had to be passed because of his continuity on the post of Senior Teacher and that owing to stay order passed by this Court, he has continued on the post of promotion. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that petitioner had no basis for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as to claim regularization of the period of his break as Senior Teacher. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that though the petitioner has not only specifically asserted that one of his juniors, who was reverted along with him, was eventually continued on the post of Senior Teacher and granted all the benefits, but he has also cited the examples of three more persons who according to him were much junior to him and yet not reverted. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have not given explanation with regard to these persons namely; Mahavir Singh, Dinesh Singh 5 Shrivastava and Ramendra Singh, but for Bhurekhan their contention is that he was granted those benefits and was treated as continued on the post of Senior Teacher because of the stay order passed by this Court. Even than the aforesaid explanation does not justify their action if the petitioner was senior, why reversion was not made on the basis of seniority and invoking the principles of last come first go. Even otherwise, if the argument of the respondents that reversion is made on account of non-availability of post if considered, this also cannot be upheld for two reasons, firstly because the petitioner has specifically asserted the fact and which fact has not been denied by the respondents that all along when the petitioner remained posted as Teacher Grade-II, the post of Senior Teacher in Government Yashwant Higher Secondary School, Alwar remained vacant and no one was posted there. Secondly, even if the reversion was to be made on account of non-availability of post, that was also required to be done strictly as per the seniority. Justification of case of the petitioner is substantiated from the recommendation made by Director of Primary and Secondary Education who by his letter dated 11.11.1991 to the Government, recommended that by regularization the break of the aforesaid period, the petitioner may be granted 6 notional benefits on the analogy that junior Bhurekhan has received such benefits. In the result this writ petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have continued on the post of Senior Teacher for the period of break from 16.11.1969 to 13.4.1970. The petitioner, however, shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the aforesaid period and resultantly he shall be considered to be continuous on the post of Senior Teacher all through entitling him to the notional benefits. Accordingly his pension and other retiral dues shall also be liable to be re-calculated and re-fixed. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.5.