CWP 61/01 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.61/2001 Parturam Raigar Versus State & (2) Ors Date of Order ::: 08/04/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Ms. Srijna Shreshtt for Mr. CL Saini, for petitioner Mr. Shivlal Meena, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondent-State Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.06/12/2000 whereby petitioner was reverted from the post of Lower Division Clerk to the cadre of Class IV on the premise that the promotion on the post of LDC is not legally sustainable now in the light of judgment of this Court. Petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 07/12/1971 and acquired qualification of Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad in the year 1984, which at one point of time, was considered to be equivalent to matriculation, however, amendment was made in sub-rule (2) of R.12 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 vide notification dt.28/06/1985 given effect from 01/04/85. Petitioner was promoted as LDC vide order dt.20/03/1991 on the basis of seniority. But the controversy remained pending as to what will be effect of qualification of Prathma and CWP 61/01 //2// whether it can be considered as equivalent after amendment for the purposes of appointment/ promotion to the post of LDC. After petitioner was promoted and working for almost nine years, the controversy was decided by Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma Vs. RSEB [1999 (1) WLC-1] - in the light whereof, all such persons like petitioner being promoted as LDC for their qualification of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Samelan or other equivalent certificate course, were reverted back to the cadre of Class IV vide order dt.06/12/2000. Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy was examined by this Court (DB) in State of Rajasthan Vs. Manilal Joshi (Special Appeal No.828/02 decided on 25/11/02 at principal seat Jodhpur) observing ad infra: “On 12/04/93, the decision of this Court which was holding field as on that date favoured his promotion, in fact until decision rendered in Jagdish Nath Vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1995(1) page 74), a Division Bench of this Court has held that persons acquiring qualification prior to 18/06/85 will continue to be eligible for promotion even for subsequent years also. The same view has been reiterated in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.137/96, State of Raj. Vs. Kastoor Singh and others. CWP 61/01 //3// The Special appeal against the decision was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Full Bench in Shankerlal Vs. RSEB (1999(1) WLC 1) held that qualification acquired upto 28/06/85 shall make the candidates eligible for vacancies which have occurred upto that date but not thereafter as per the qualification certificate itself was changed.” “It is in aforesaid circumstances when the petitioner challenged his reversion order, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that view of the law declared by this Court which was holding the field when the petitioner was promoted. Subsequent reversal of that view, on different petitions in different matters ought not to affect the transactions which have been completed on the belief about the correctness of law as was declared by this Court interpreting the relevant Rules and by which State too was bound to act in consonance thereof. In these circumstances it will not be just and fair to revert petitioner after so long period.” In view of what has been observed (supra), it is settled that if an incumbent was promoted on the basis of existing provisions and the law declared by this Court at relevant point of time, which was holding the field, subsequent reversal of CWP 61/01 //4// that view on different petitions, will not affect transactions which have been completed on the belief about correctness of law as was declared by this Court interpreting relevant Rules. It has been informed that against judgment of Division Bench pronounced at principal seat Jodhpur, SLP No.6999/03 was also preferred by State Government that too has been dismissed on 22/08/2003. In such circumstances, in view of latter decision of this Court, the controversy raised herein does not remain res integra. Petitioner was also promoted as LDC much prior to judgment of Full Bench of this Court and he is fully covered by judgment of Division Bench quoted (supra) and accordingly his subsequent reversal vide order impugned dt.06/12/2000 is not legally sustainable. While notices were issued by this Court, operation of impugned order was stayed and order impugned has not been given effect to. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Order dt.06/12/2000 with regard to reversion from the post of LDC to the cadre of Class IV qua petitioner is hereby quashed & set aside and he is entitled for consequential benefits flowing thereof. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/61CW01prthma0804.doc