- (1.) HELD - It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector-cum-Food Inspector, w. e. f. 14. 01. 1969 and it was only because of his having training and also having sufficient experience in compliance with the Rules that he was given promotions by the Board from the post of A. S. I. Gr. IIIrd to the post of S. I. Grade-lst, w. e. f. 1. 04. 1973. since otherwise the department would not have given promotions to the petitioner from time to time which were due to him in accordance with the Rules. It is a very strange anomaly that the Municipal Board, has taken a stand in its reply that the Board was not competent to give promotion to the petitioner as S. l. Gr. Ilnd or S. I. Gr-Ist and it is not understandable as to how the said orders which were passed with the approval of the Municipal Board, could be deemed to be null-void. It is a settled proposition of law that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute likewise it is not open to the Municipal Board, to plead estoppel against its own administrative order, which is totally non-est in-valid and in-operative in the eye of law. It has been contended by the respondents in their reply that it was only the Commissioner which could make the regular selections by direct recruitment. The aforesaid contentions of the Municipal Board, does not stand to reason particularly when this is not a case of direct recruitment by the commission but the appointment of the petitioner on the post of S. I. G. r Ist was by way of promotion. Hence, it is not open to the non-petitioner to plead ignorance of the Rules or to contend that in the absence of availability of the vacancies, the Municipal Board, Bayana, did not have any authority of law to have fixed the petitioner in the pay-scale of S. I. Gr-IInd or for the reason in the grade of S. I. Grade 1st.
(2.) DURING the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Akbar Khan & Ors. vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (1), wherein this Court while dealing with the similar case has held that principle of audi-alteram-parterm applies. Affected parties are entitled to be heard before mistake is corrected. The principle of audi alteram partem applies with full force even in administrative matters. It was obligatory on the part of the authorities to issue show cause notice before correcting the mistake which they considered to be a mistake. The petitioner had the right to make a submission that it was not a mistake, they could have also submitted some material before the authorities to convince them that it may not be a case of mistake at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Sh. Govind Prasad vs. R. G. Prasad & Ors. (2), wherein the Apex Court has held that it is a settled law that an executive order of the government cannot be made operative with retrospective effect. In my opinion the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully attracted to the facts of the instant case. It is note worthy to mention that notwithstanding the fact that the State Government, has not appointed any counsel to assist the Court in this case from the penal of the State counsel, yet Shri N. L. Pareek, Learned Addl. Government Advocate, has rendered full assistance to this Court on behalf of the State. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Municipal Board which is an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to exercise its powers more vigilantly with due safeguards towards the citizens and more particularly in the case of its own officials as they may have no cause of complaint to the Board. Government is a public authority for the welfare of the citizens is suppose to be more vigilant in exercise of its duties as compared to an ordinary citizen. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and their rival claims and contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the strength of contentions advanced by him in the petition and the impugned orders dated 3. 04. 1980; 13. 10. 1980,7th September,. 1981 and 29. 07. 1981 passed by the non-petitioners are quashed and set-aside. The writ petition is allowed with cost which is assessed as Rs. 10,000/ -. Out of which Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited with the State Legal Aid Board and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner. The non-petitioners are directed that the petitioner shall be treated as confirmed on the post of S. I. Grade Ist w. e. f. the date of his promotions with all consequential benefits of salary, increments and future promotions etc. which may be due to him in accordance with Rules.
(3.) A copy of this order be sent to the Director, Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, with the direction that he should comply the order passed by this Court immediately and submit a compliance report to this Court positively within eight weeks from today. .;