RAMESHWAR LAL PANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 24. 8. 2001 against the respondents with a prayer that the impugned order dtd. 8. 11. 2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Superintendent, Associated Groups of Hospitals, Jodhpur) by which earlier order dtd. 9. 11. 1988 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Superintendent, Associated Groups of Hospitals, Jodhpur) by which the petitioner was granted pay scale No. 6 in place of pay scale No. 3 was cancelled, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Tailor through order dtd. 13. 2. 1981 (Annex. 1 ). He was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 250-360 (Pay Scale No. 3 ). (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that services of the petitioner were confirmed through order dtd. 9. 12. 1983. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that he was possessing qualification upto 8th standard plus commercial diploma from Mumbai and ITI and the said qualification was prescribed in the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment to other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960 ). (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the through order dtd. 9. 12. 1988 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Superintendent, Associated Groups of Hospitals, Jodhpur), the petitioner was given pay scale of Rs. 820-1520 (pay scale No. 6) on the newly created post because he was possessing all the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Rules of 1960. (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, the order dtd. 8. 11. 2001 (Annex. 3) was passed by the respondent No. 2 (Superintendent) by which the order dtd. 9. 12. 1998 (Annex. 2) was cancelled by which the petitioner was granted the pay scale No. 6 and instead of pay scale No. 6, the petitioner was granted pay scale No. 3. Hence, this writ petition with the abovermentioned prayer.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner was possessing all the requisite qualification for getting the pay scale No. 6.