VERMA, J. - (1.) NO one has appeared on behalf of respondent, nor any written statement has been filed, therefore, the writ petition is being decided on the facts as stated in the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case, as per pleadings and annexure attached to writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as class IV servant vide order dated 19. 7. 67 initially for a short period of three months and thereafter six months, but later on, promoted to the post of LDC vide order dated 1. 6. 70 (Annex. 1 ). Despite the fact that the petitioner was working as clerk but his increments were not sanctioned. He had to file the writ petition No. 1326/81. He was granted the increments for the year 1980-81 and the writ petition came to be withdrawn. According to petitioner his date of birth is 19. 7. 1951 as per certificate of Secondary School Examination passed in the year 1969, copy of which is attached as Annexure-4. According to petitioner the date of birth as entered in his service book is 19. 7. 51, but without any notice to petitioner his date of birth has been changed from 19. 7. 51 to 19. 7. 50 vide order dated 20. 3. 84, copy of which is attached as Annexure-5. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said change of date of birth and for not sanctioning the annual grade increments, which were released during pendency of the writ petition No. 1326/81, but it is stated that with ulterior motive and extraneous reasons his increments were not released on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the type test meant for LDC, therefore, the order passed for recovery of Rs. 9086. 14 from the pay of petitioner is illegal. According to petitioner this order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that as per Rajasthan Class IV Service Rules, 1963 the Class IV employees are entitled for promotion to the post of LDC and as per Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 certain reservations have been made for promotion of Class IV employees to the post of LDC, who qualify the minimum educational qualification. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the person so promoted is not required to pass any type test and the type test may be mandatory for those employees who are appointed directly and not on promotion. The petitioner had also approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, but with no gain. The prayer has been made by the petitioner for setting aside the order Annexure-5 whereby the date of birth of petitioner has been changed from 19. 7. 51 to 19. 7. 50 and to allow to the petitioner to earn annual grade increments and to quash the order Annexure-7, in this regard.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must succeed. The change of date of birth from 19. 7. 51 to 19. 7. 50 has been made without any notice to petitioner. According to petitioner his date of birth as entered in this certificate of Secondary School is 19. 7. 51, which was entered in the service book as well. If at all any change was to be made by the department, that could have only be made on some evidence, documents or any other reliable information that too, after giving due notice to petitioner, which provision has not been complied with. The order annexure-5 has been passed suo moto at the back of petitioner, violating well settled principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As regards non grant of annual grade increments for initial years, even though some increment was released and the petitioner was also promoted to the post of UDC, it goes without saying that there is no service condition mentioned in the Rules for promotion of Class IV employees to the post of Clerk that any such test is to be passed. The only qualification as prescribed in the rules is that such Class IV should have possess minimum educational qualification and that he should have experience of minimum five years on the post of Class IV. If the petitioner was promoted from the post of Class IV, the condition of passing type test is not proper. Counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on the notification dated 21. 10. 1981, mention of which has been made in the order of Appellate Tribunal, wherein the Government had decided to relax the condition of passing type test/proficiency test in case of Class IV employees who are promoted to the post of LDC in accordance with law. The copy of the notification is placed on record. ;