Om Prakash Deora @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to insert the petitioner’s educational qualification as

equivalent to secondary education examination in the seniority list dated 03.03.2003 and to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of

LDC prior to the persons junior to him.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petition was amended and it was prayed that in terms of the order dated 02.04.2003 (Annex.12), by

which promotion was granted to the persons junior to the petitioner, petitioner may be accorded promotion from the said date.

The petitioner after passing 9th standard joined services as Class IV in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Rajasthan Class IV Service

(Recruitment and Other Service Condition) Rules, 1963 (‘the Rules of 1963’). While working, after seeking permission for pursuing higher

education, petitioner got permission for appearing in the examination called Rashtra Bhasha Kovid being conducted by Rashtra Bhasha Prachar

Samiti, Vardha, which was equivalent to Inter. The petitioner passed the said examination of Rashtra Bhasha Kovid on 20.11.1982. Whereafter, the

petitioner also appeared in one paper of English for examination of secondary and passed the English subject as 3rd paper / language in the year 1984.

The prayer made by the petitioner for including his qualification was not accepted and in the seniority list published by the respondents (Annex.-7),

against the name of the petitioner the qualification was not indicated. Whereafter, the promotion from Class IV to LDC took place on 02.04.2003

(Annex.12), wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the degree obtained by the petitioner of Rashtra Bhasha Kovid was derecognized in the

year 1985 and the petitioner had already obtained the said degree in the year 1982 and therefore, the derecognition could not affect the degree

obtained by the petitioner and as such, the action of the respondents in not indicating the qualification of the petitioner in the seniority list and

consequently, not according promotion to the petitioner alongwith persons junior to him is not justified.

Reliance was placed on judgment in Suresh Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. : AIR 1987 SC 2027.

Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the Court to the Additional Reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that

in the DPC convened on 26.03.2013 for the year 2005-2006, the candidature of the petitioner was considered and he was granted promotion on the

post of LDC. However, it is submitted that the petitioner was not qualified and it was wrongly indicated in the seniority list that he was 10th passed,

which resulted in passing of the order dated 26.03.2013 according promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 2005-2006. Permission has been sought to hold the

review DPC to correct the mistake / error which bonafidely occurred on account of wrong mentioning of qualification of the petitioner.

The issue of derecognition of certain qualifications and/or amendment in the Rules has been decided by a Larger Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal

Verma vs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board : 1999(1) RLW 55, wherein it was laid down by this Court as under :-

“(33). In the result, we conclude that there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the amended qualifications shall not apply to them

because they had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment of the rules. In our opinion, the amended rule and the qualifications will

apply even to the candidates who have obtained the equivalent qualifications prior to the date of enforcement of amended rule. However, the amended

qualifications shall not be applicable to the vacancies which had occurred prior to the date of enforcement of the amended rule and such vacancies

shall be filled-in in accordance with the qualifications prescribed as on the date of occurrence of vacancies. We, therefore, answer the reference

accordingly. The petitions shall now be listed before appropriate Bench for decision in accordance with law in the light of this decision.â€​

Admittedly, present is not a case wherein the qualification for promotion to the post of LDC continuous to be same and only a particular degree has

been derecognised. Present is a case as projected by the petitioner that the amendments have taken place wherein as per Rule 12(2) of the Rules of

1963 for the post of LDC, a person must possess the certificate of high school or secondary examination or equivalent qualification, which replaced

the earlier qualification requiring “must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualification recognized by the govt. as equivalent to that of matriculation.â€Â

Once, the qualification for the post of LDC stood amended, and even if the petitioner was possessing a qualification which was equivalent to

unamended qualification, in view of law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Shankar Lal Verma’s case (supra) arising

from the similar nature controversy, the plea raised that the amended qualification was not applicable to the petitioner as he had acquired the

equivalent qualification prior to the amendment of the Rules has been negated.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors. : (1999)3 SCC 653 has laid down as under :-

“6. The law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion

to different posts. The case put forth on behalf of the respondents is that when they joined the service, the requirement of passing the matriculation

was not needed and while they are in service, such prescription has been made to their detriment. But it is clear that there is no indefeasible right in

the respondents to claim for promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed

by the Government in that behalf would always be favourable to them. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, it was held by this Court that once

appointed, an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are

no longer determined by consent of parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The

High Court has also noticed that there was an avenue provided for promotion but the prescription of the qualification was not favourable to

respondents. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference

to the conditions of service as such. As long as rules provide for conditions of service making an avenue for promotion to higher grades, the

observations made in T.R.Kothandaramans case stand fulfilled. In that view of the matter, we do not think the High Court was justified in allowing the

writ petitions filed by the respondents.â€​

In view of the above fact situation and the law, the petitioner is not entitled to consideration of his qualification as fulfilling the requirements after

amendment of the requisite qualification under Rule 12(2) of the Rules only on account of the fact that he had acquired the qualification prior to the

amendment, as laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court.

So far as the submissions made by the respondents regarding wrongly granting the promotion to the petitioner in the year 2013 against the vacancies

of the year 2005-2006 is concerned, and further a permission has been sought from the Court for holding a review DPC is concerned, no comment is

required to be made by the Court in so far as the grant of benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 2005-2006 is concerned. It is for the respondents to decide

their future course of action in accordance with law.

Consequently, in so far as the plea raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition seeking promotion w.e.f. 02.04.2003 is concerned, the same has

no substance. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.