Allowed

Ram Swaroop Lakhera v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2008CW/1718/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged reversion to Class IV cadre after promotion as Lower Division Clerk based on Prathma Examination qualification. Court held that since promotion occurred under the law holding the field at that time, subsequent legal reversal could not invalidate the completed promotion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of reversion to Class IV cadre is quashed and set aside; petitioner entitled to consequential benefits.

Ram Swaroop Lakhera Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

CWP 1718/01

¶2

//1//

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.1718/2001 Ram Swrup Lakhera Versus State

¶5

Date of Order ::: 08/04/08

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati, for petitioner Mr. Shivlal Meena, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondent-State

¶8

Instant petition has been filed assailing
order dt.23/03/01 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.

¶9

Petitioner was appointed as Class IV

¶10

employee in the year 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 Secondary School examination,
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.25/10/96 on the
basis of seniority. But the controversy remained

¶11

pending as to what will be effect of

¶12

CWP 1718/01

¶13

//2//

¶14

qualification of Prathma and whether it can be
considered as equivalent after amendment for the
purposes of appointment/promotion to the post of
LDC.

¶15

After petitioner was promoted and working

¶16

for almost five 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.23/03/01.

¶17

Counsel for petitioner submits that

¶18

controversy was examined by this Court (DB) in
State of Rajasthan Vs. Manilal Joshi (Special

¶19

Appeal No.828/02 decided on 25/11/02 at principal

¶20

seat Jodhpur) observing ad infra:

¶21

“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

¶22

Nath Vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1995(1)

¶23

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

¶24

CWP 1718/01

¶25

//3//

¶26

of Raj. Vs. Kastoor Singh and others.
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.”

¶27

“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
consonancethereof.Inthese
circumstances it will not be just and
fair to revert petitioner after so long
period.”

¶28

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

¶29

CWP 1718/01 //4//

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In such circumstances, in view of latter
decision of this Court, the controversy raised
herein does not remain res integra.

¶33

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.23/03/01 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.

¶34

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and
is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Order
dt.23/03/2001 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.

¶35

K.Khatri/p.4/1718CW01prthma0804.doc

Ram Swaroop Lakhera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Swaroop Lakhera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Settlement Commissioner Ja Vs Suresh Chand Sharma and Anr.

Padam Chand Vs State Andors

Dambar Singh Vs State and Ors.

Partu Ram Raigar Vs State and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Mangi Lal Balai Vs U O R Jaipur