1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER Smt. Madhu Lata Bhatnagar VS. Panchayat Samiti, Kherwada, & Anr. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.310/1994 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 16th October, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA Mr. Sanjay Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal for the respondents. ________ BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed after regular selection through Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Selection Commission, Jaipur under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service as a Primary School Teacher. The petitioner got herself 2 trained through correspondence course conducted by Government of Rajasthan in the year 1981 and was placed in regular pay scale of 490-840. Thereafter she was fixed in the revised pay scale in the year 1983, 1986 and 1989 as and when the same were become applicable to her and she was fixed at Rs.1200/- from 1st Sept., 1998 under the Revised Pay Rules of 1989. On completion of 15 years of service on 20th August, 1990 vide order dated 9th July, 1991, the petitioner was granted selection scale of Rs.1400/- to Rs.2600/- considering her to be eligible to hold the post on having completed 15 years service on being appointed after regular selection. However, without notice to the petitioner vide order dated 23rd June, 1993, the Block Development Officer withdrew the order granting selection scale to the petitioner inter alia on the ground that benefit of selection scale is granted to incumbent on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service is applicable with effect from the date the untrained teacher acquires the qualification and completes the requisite period 3 thereafter and consequently a recovery of Rs.8,573/- was ordered to be made from the petitioner's salary by deducting Rs.500/- per month. It is not disputed in the return submitted by the respondent that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing Annex.3 and 4. The only contention raised that there was a clerical mistake and no defence was open to the petitioner against the order of withdrawing the selection scale. It does not appear to be so, firstly the impugned order Annex.3 refers to the fact that the order of selection scale was contrary to order allowing selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years respectively. The circular allowing selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years itself came into effect only on 25th January, 1992 and, therefore, could not have effected the orders passed prior to that date. Admittedly in this case the selection scale was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 9th July, 4 1991 referring to the order of 1989. Said order on which reliance has been placed does not speak of completion of 15 years of service with effect from the date of acquiring eligibility qualification after the regular selection had been made. The fact is that the petitioner was given appointment by regular selection process without resorting to any back door entry is also not in dispute. Moreover, the petitioner has also certain disputes about her initial fixation and if the respondents are entitled to correct the clerical mistake after the lapse of long period then the right of petitioner also to seek correction of clerical mistake that has arisen in fixation of initial pay also cannot be denied to her to do complete justice between the parties. Looking from any angle, it is not a case in which the petitioner's right could have been affected. The writ petition deserves to succeed on this ground alone that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which adversely affects her. 5 Moreover, it has been brought to my notice that the learned Single Judge in Smt. Anama Chako Vs. State & Ors. WLR 1998 Raj 424 had held on merit also in the like circumstances that when appointment was given by regular process through body constituted for selection, the appointment cannot be held to be irregular merely because the qualification to be acquired during the service a fixed pay has been granted though they were appointed to a post carrying regular pay scale, therefore, it was not a case where the appointment was not a regular appointment but was a case in which the regular pay scale was delayed to a regularly appointed candidate until he acquires the requisite qualification. On this premises, the withdrawal of selection grade granted to the teacher like the petitioner on completion of 15 years service from the initial appointment on the date selection grade was granted or she acquired training and was eligible for promotion, the order withdrawing selection scale was quashed. It is further informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the judgment of learned Single Judge was upheld by the 6 Division Bench and S.L.P. against the Bench decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annex.3 and 4 are quashed. The recovery, if any, already effected from the petitioner shall be restored to her though on the other hand there was an interim order dated 18.1.1994 staying the recovery in pursuance of impugned orders. No order as to costs. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/