1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Gangadhar Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4005/1994) Dated : 09.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. V.N. Kalla, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati, Additional Government Counsel, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner a class IV employee in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, has sought directions against the respondents for consideration of his candidature for promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk (in short 'LDC' hereinafter) w.e.f. the date he acquired the eligibility for the promotion on the said post with consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner entered the services of the Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, on being appointed as class IV employee w.e.f 26.4.75. He acquired qualification of Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1978, which was recognized to be equivalent to secondary school examination by the State Government. 2 3. The eligibility for promotion to the post of LDC under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (in short 'the Rules of 1957' hereinafter) was 'Secondary School Examination or its equivalent examination recognized by the State Government'. However, vide notification dated 28.6.85, issued by the State Government, the eligibility qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of LDC has been amended and 'qualification equivalent to secondary school examination' stands deleted from the rule relating to the eligibility under the Rules of 1957. Therefore, the petitioner's candidature is not being considered for promotion to the post of LDC, inasmuch as presently he does not hold the eligibility qualification prescribed for promotion to post under the Rules of 1957. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1978 and the same was recognized by the State Government as equivalent to secondary school examination, therefore, as per the eligibility qualification prescribed during the relevant period, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of LDC. Learned counsel further submitted that the qualification amended by notification dated 28.6.85 shall not apply to the petitioner because he has acquired the eligibility qualification prior to the amendment in the Rules of 1957 as 3 aforesaid. Learned counsel urged that in any case the amended qualification cannot be made applicable to the vacancies which had occurred prior to the date of issuance of notification dated 28.6.85. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of ''Shanker Lal Verma & 13 Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board' (1999) 1 WLC 1. 5. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Counsel that the eligibility qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of LDC having been amended by notification dated 28.6.85, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC, nothwithstanding that he has acquired the qualification of Prathama Examination prior to aforesaid amendment introduced in the Rules of 1957. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, controversy involved in the matter is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma's case (supra). 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Prathama Examination in the year 1978, which was recognized by the State Government to be equivalent to the secondary school examination and accordingly, class IV employees holding the qualification of Prathama Examination 4 were considered and accorded promotion by the respondents to the post of LDC in past, prior to the aforesaid amendment introduced in the Rules of 1957. In the matter of Shanker Lal Verma's case (supra), while deciding the reference made by the Division Bench of this Court, after examining the matter in its entirety and objectivity, the Full Bench of this Court has held as under : “ In the result, we conclude that there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the amended qualifications shall not apply to them because they had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment of the rules. In our opinion, the amended rule and the qualifications will apply even to the candidates who have obtained the equivalent qualifications prior to the date of enforcement of amended rule. However, the amended qualifications shall not be applicable to the vacancies which had occurred prior to the date of enforcement of the amended rule and such vacancies shall be filled-in in accordance with the qualifications prescribed as on the date of occurrence of vacancies. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly.” Thus, the question with regard to entitlement of the class IV employees for consideration of their candidature for promotion to the post of LDC, on the basis of equivalent qualification acquired prior to the date of enforcement of the amendment, against the vacancies which had occurred prior to 5 the date of the enforcement of amended rule stands concluded by the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court and the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the post of LDC on the ground that the qualification acquired by the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility prescribed under the Rules of 1957. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that the respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of LDC according to his seniority against the vacancies which had occurred prior to 28.6.85. If the petitioner is found suitable for promotion and accorded promotion, then, he shall be entitled for consequential benefits. The compliance of the aforesaid directions shall be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA), J. vij