VYAS, J. - (1.) IN all above writ petitions, petitioners are challenging validity of order dated 20/6/2006 passed by Agriculture University, Bikaner, whereby, petitioners were reverted on the post of class IV employees on the ground that the qualification of Prathma acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad due to derecognition with effect from 28/6/1985 cannot be treated equivalent to Matriculation for the purpose of promotion on the post of LDC. The State Government in pursuance of judgment rendered by Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, which is decided along with case of Shanker Lal vs. RSEB passed an order on 7/3/2000 that those persons who were promoted on the basis of qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad after 28/6/1985 shall be reverted on the post of Class IV employees because the said qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has not been treated equivalent to the Secondary School Examination and moreover after de-recognition of the qualification from 28/6/1985 those persons who were promoted after 28/6/1985 were not treated qualified for promotion on the ground that as per judgment dated 11/9/1998 of Rajasthan High Court in Prem Kumar case and 13 others, the said qualification has been declared ineligibility for the purpose of promotion on the post of LDC after 28/6/85.
(2.) SINCE the point involved in all the above writ petitions is identical, therefore, for convenience all these writ petitions are decided by this common order. However, it is relevant to notice brief facts of each case. FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3235/2006 (Choru Lal vs. Raj. Agriculture University & Ors.) Petitioner Choru Lal was initially appointed as class IV employee on 1. 3. 1966 in Gynecology Department, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner. On the basis of qualification of Prathma acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad he was promoted on the post of LDC on 19/27. 12. 1988 on adhoc basis because at that time the said qualification was equivalent to Secondary Education. Later on petitioner was allowed regular pay scale and he was exempted from passing type test vide order dated 25/6/1990/2/7/1990 issued by the Registrar, which is placed on record as Annex. 9. Petitioner was further promoted on the post of UDC on 25/4/1995 and benefits of revision of pay scales was also allowed to him from time to time and at the time of filing writ petition, he was getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100- 6000/- as per Revised Pay Scales Rules, 1998. Thereafter, a notice dated 17/4/20056 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee in view of the fact that Prathma qualification acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been de-recognised w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. Similar notice was also issued to other persons and they filed detailed reply but without considering the fact that petitioner was promoted in 1988 on the post of LDC and further promoted on the post of UDC, the respondent University passed the impugned order of reversion on the ground that the qualification acquired by him was de- recognised after 28/6/1985 as per Full Bench judgment of this Court in which the qualification of Prathma was not treated equivalent to Matriculation. In para no. 20 of the writ petition, it is stated that earlier also petitioner was issued similar notice on 29/30. 3. 1994 and he was asked to submit his explanation as to why he should not be demoted on the post of Class IV employee on the ground of derecognition of qualification obtained by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the purpose of promotion on the post of LDC. In pursuance of said notice an explanation was filed by petitioner in which it was specifically mentioned that he has acquired qualification of Prathma in 1983 before derecognition of said qualification. Further it is submitted that he was given promotion after considering his qualification and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part, therefore, he cannot be put to such a disadvantageous position after such an inordinate delay. It is contended that though in the year 1994 notice to revert him to the post of Class IV employee was given and reply was submitted by him, his case for promotion was considered in the year 1995 and he was promoted on the post of UDC, therefore, though petitioner is employee of the University but since the University has signed MOU with the State Government, therefore, as per order of the Government dated 3/7/2000 the petitioner has been reverted from the post of UDC to class IV employee after eighteen years, therefore, order impugned dated 20/6/2006 which is passed on illegal grounds deserves to be quashed. FACTS OF WRIt PETItION NO. 3260/2006 (Bhanwar Lal vs. Raj. Agriculture University & Ors.) In this case petitioner was initially appointed as Class IV employee and having acquired the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad petitioner was promoted on the post of LDC on 5/4/1990. Thereafter, petitioner was further promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1996 and benefits of revision of pay scales was also allowed to him from time to time. Thereafter, a notice dated 29/30. 3. 1994 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee in view of the fact that Prathma qualification acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been dereognised to which petitioner submitted his representation and demanded copies of certain documents which were not supplied to him by the University. Thereafter he was further promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1996 and while working as such he was again issued a notice dated 17/4/2006 as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee on the same ground that Prathma qualification acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been de-recognised w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. Pursuant to notice dated 17/4/2006, petitioner submitted an application demanding copies of some relevant documents to file reply but again he was not supplied the same however, he submitted his reply on 28/4/2006 through proper channel and specifically submitted that he has not made any misrepresentation or fraud, therefore, he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee and also prayed for personal hearing. However, without considering his reply and without providing opportunity of personal hearing, vide impugned order dated 20/6/2006 he was reverted from the post of UDC to the post of Class IV employee after working on promotional post for sixteen years. Although the petitioner is employee of the University but he has been reverted from the post of UDC to the post of Class IV employee on the basis of order of State Government dated 3/7/2000 because the University has signed MOU with the Government to comply all the orders of Government, which is illegal and deserves to be quashed. FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3218/2006 (Karni Singh vs. Raj. Agriculture University & Ors.) The petitioner in this case was initially appointed on 11/4/1966 as class IV employee on adhoc basis and vide order dated 17/1/1968 he was confirmed on the said post w. e. f. 11. 4. 1967. During his service he acquired the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and looking to his satisfactory service and requisite qualification he was considered for promotion to the post of LDC and promoted as such on 5/4/1990 and benefits of revision of pay scales was also allowed to him from time to time. Thereafter, a notice dated 29/30. 3. 1994 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee in view of the fact that Prathma qualification acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been derecognised to which petitioner submitted his representation and demanded copies of certain documents which were not supplied to him by the University. Thereafter again a notice dated 17/4/2006 was issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee on the same ground that Prathma qualification acquired by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been de-recognised w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. Pursuant to notice dated 17/4/2006, petitioner submitted an application demanding copies of some relevant documents to file reply but again he was not supplied the same however, he submitted his reply on 28/4/2006 through proper channel and specifically submitted that he has not made any misrepresentation or fraud, therefore, he should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee and also prayed for personal hearing. However, without considering his reply and without providing opportunity of personal hearing, vide impugned order dated 20/6/2006 he was reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV employee, although petitioner is employee of the University but has been reverted on the basis of order dated 3/7/2000 passed by the State Government because University has signed MOU with the State Government that University will comply all the orders of State Government but this ground of reversion is illegal, therefore, order of reversion dated 20/6/2006 deserves to be quashed. FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3219/2006 (Hanuman Singh vs. Raj. Agriculture University & Ors.)
(3.) IN this case petitioner no. 1 Hanuman Singh was initially appointed in the year 1978 and petitioner no. 2 Surendra Kumar Sharma was appointed in the year 1966 as class IV employees. While working on the post of Class IV employees petitioners acquired qualification of Prathma in the year 1985 and 1982 respectively. Thereafter, looking to their work and qualification, they were promoted on the post of LDC on 5/4/1990 and 27/4/1989 respectively. However, a notice dated 29/30. 3. 1994 was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee in view of the fact that Prathma qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been dereognised. Petitioners submitted their reply and submitted that since they are working on the post of LDC for years together and no misrepresentation or fraud has been committed by them at the time of their promotion, therefore, they should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee. Thereafter, again on 17/4/2006 petitioners were issued similar notice on the ground that the Prathma qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Allahabad has been derecognised, to which petitioners filed their reply but without considering the reply of petitioners vide impugned order dated 20/6/2006 they were reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV Employee. According to the petitioners respondents have illegally reverted them to the post of Class IV employee because there was no misrepresentation or fraud on their part in seeking promotion to the post of LDC, whereas, respondents themselves with open eyes after considering their qualification granted promotion on the post of LDC, therefore, they ought not be reverted after working on the post of LDC for long period, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. In all the above writ petitions, petitioner are challenging the validity of order dated 20/6/2006, whereby, they were reverted from the post of UDC/ldc to the post of Class IV employee. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are working on their respective posts after due promotion by the respondent University while considering their qualification acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, therefore, now at a later stage it is not proper to revert the petitioners to the post of Class IV employee when they have gained experience of more than sixteen years. The reversion order has been passed on the ground that State Government has issued order dated 3/7/2000 for reverting those employees who were promoted after 28/6/85 on the basis of Prathma qualification on the post of LDC which is held ineligible in case of Prem Kumar and 13 others by the High Court. Further it is submitted that petitioners are working in Rajasthan Agriculture University which is an autonomous body and they have been reverted in pursuance of notification issued by the State Government on 3/7/2006, whereby, it was ordered by the State of Rajasthan that all those class IV employees who were promoted on the basis of Prathma qualification acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad have not been held eligible for promotion on the post of LDC because the said qualification is not equivalent to Secondary School Examination after derecognition by the State Government w. e. f. 28/6/1985, therefore, as per respondent University petitioners were not eligible for promotion on the post of LDC but on the basis of said qualification they were illegally promoted and now the State Government has passed an order in pursuance of judgment rendered by this Court in Prem Kumar's case and since the University has signed the memorandum of understanding with the State Government, therefore, it is required to follow the directions issued by the State Government on 3/7/2000 and reverted the petitioners to the post of Class IV employees. ;