Dismissed

State of Raj and Ors. v. Nand Kishore Singh and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2023CW/10604/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Court held it could not pass any order contrary to the ratio of this Court's Larger Bench in the case of Shanker Lal Verma, which addressed eligibility issues regarding amended rules and vested rights.

What did the court decide?

The civil writ petition and the stay application stand dismissed in view of the Larger Bench judgment in Shanker Lal Verma.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Nand Kishore… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009835]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10604/2011

¶4

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶5

Director, Secondary Education , Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶6

District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District Tonk

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Nand Kishore Singh Son Of Shri Mohan Singh, Near Bakaji Ka Chowk, Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Newai, District Tonk

¶10

The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Raj., Jaipur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.Zakawat Ali-Addl.G.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Swami

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

08/05/2023

¶16

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶17

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order of direction:-

¶18

[i] the impugned order dated 13.10.2009 passed by learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur in Appeal No. 1154/2002 may be declared illegal, perverse and contrary to the provision of law and the same be quashed and set aside; ii] the appeal No. 1154/2002 preferred by the respondent-appellant before the Rajasthan Civil

(2 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/009835]

[CW-10604/2011]

Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur be dismissed in toto;

¶23

iii] any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Shanker Lal Verma Vs. the Rajasthan Electricity Board, reported in 1999(1) WLC (Raj.) 1 . Counsel submit that following the aforesaid judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the controversy involved in the case of Alla Noor Khan Vs. State of Rajsthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3579/1997, decided on 02.04.2013.

¶25

Counsel submits that instant petition be disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid cases Shanker Lal

¶26

Verma (Supra) and Alla Noor Khan (Supra).

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶28

Since the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Shanker Lal Verma (Supra) by observing thus:-

¶29

“31. From the case law discussed above, it is clear that a rule can be amended retrospectively, but such retrospective effect cannot be allowed to take away vested rights of citizens. It has also not been disputed before us that the amended rule would apply to vacancies which arise after the date on which the amending notification was issued. The questions to be decided, therefore, are as to whether the amended qualification in the rule would apply to Class IV employees who had acquired the equivalent qualification prior to amendment of the rule, and as

[2023/RJJP/009835]

[CW-10604/2011]

(3 of 5)

to whether a vested right is conferred on the petitioners on their acquiring the equivalent qualification at a time when the equivalent qualification was not deleted from the rules. The contention that all candidates who had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment in the rules deleting the equivalent qualifications would be deemed to have acquired that qualification in the legitimate expectation that by acquiring that qualification, they would become eligible for promotion as that was the qualification then prescribed under the rules for promotion to the post of L.D.C., cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that any promise was held out by the respondents to the petitioners that they would be considered for promotion if they acquired the qualifications they have acquired. Moreover, if the contention is accepted, it would lead to absurd result as different candidates for; the same post at the same selection would be having different qualifications depending on the dates on which such qualifications were acquired. Thus, those who have acquired the same qualifications after the amendment in the rules would be ineligible but those who had acquired that qualification earlier to the amendment in the rules would be eligible.

¶34

It is also to be noted that these are not the cases of de-recognition of a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a particular institution because of some fault on the part of the institution awarding the same. The cases of de-recognition of particular institutions and consequently de-recognition of the degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by such institutions have to be distinguished from service matters in which certain qualifications are deleted from the rules. Removing or deleting a qualification from eligibility criteria cannot be said to be de-recognition of that qualification or a degree, diploma or certificate. It only means that the degree, diploma or certificate has ceased to be the eligibility qualification for a particular post. It does not take away from the candidate, the degree, diploma or certificate conferred by the institutions. For example, if the eligibility qualification for a particular post was earlier 'Graduate' and by amendment, it is raised to 'Post graduate', it does not mean that degree possessed by

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/009835]

[CW-10604/2011]

the candidates are de-recognised. What it simply means is that the eligibility qualifications are enhanced and a higher qualification is now required. It is also to be taken into account that purpose behind amendment to the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria. This may be because of the changed situation in which the employer may find that candidates who have passed the Secondary School Examination from the Statutory Boards and Universities are available in sufficient numbers and it was not necessary to consider the candidates having equivalent qualifications. The respondents cannot be forced to accept equivalence of certain qualifications and to accept such equivalence for all times to come.

¶39

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. The petitions shall now be listed before appropriate Bench for decision in accordance with law in the light of this decision.”

¶40

In view of the above, this Court is refraining itself from passing any order contrary to the ratio as propounded by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Shanker Lal Verma (Supra) for those seeking promotion against the vacancies after de-recognition.

(5 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/009835]

[CW-10604/2011]

In the background aforesaid and looking to the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Shanker Lal Verma (Supra) , this Court is unable to accept the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶45

Accordingly, the civil writ petition stands dismissed.

¶46

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶47

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶48

Ashu/27

State of Raj and Ors. v. Nand Kishore Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj and Ors. v. Nand Kishore Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satypal S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajad Singh S/O Shri Savat Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jaiprakash Saini S/O Shri Sayarmal Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Arya Samaj Shiksha Sabha Vs Ishwar Lal and Ors.

Ram Dayal Bairwa Vs Raj Land Development Corp and Anr.

Rekha Teli Daughter of Shri Kerulal Vs State of Rajasthan