Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) MATTER has come up on application for early hearing. The same stands allowed.
(2.) COUNSEL for Petitioner submits that the controversy raised herein has been examined and decided by this Court in (Ram Swrup Lakhera v. State) vide judgment dt.08.04.2008. The Petitioner initially joined service in the cadre of Class -IV and acquired qualification of Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad in September,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 Rule 12 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules,1957, vide notification dt.28.06.1985. The Petitioner was promoted as LDC vide order dt.04.04.1998 on the basis of seniority and controversy was finally settled by Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma v. RSEB, 1999 (1) WLC 1 in the light whereof, all such persons like Petitioner being promoted prior to the judgment of the Larger Bench were reverted to the post of Class -IV vide order dt.25.07.2000.
(3.) THE reversion of such employees which took place after the judgment of the Larger Bench in Shanker Lal v. RSEB, the controversy came to be examined by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi (Special Appeal No. 828/02) decided on 25.11.2002 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 v. State of Raj. (RLW 1995 (1) 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. v. Kastoor Singh and others. The Special appeal against the decision was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Full Bench in Shankerlal v. 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.;