IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3762/1996
{Tulshi Das Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others}
AND
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3763/1996
{Murari Lal Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others}
Date of Order ::: 19.01.2010
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri Anil Sharma for
Shri Jitendra Pandey, Counsel for petitioner
Shri Inderjeet Singh for respondent No.4
Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3
####
By the Court:-
Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are working as Class IV employees with the respondent No.3. The petitioners claimed that they passed Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag (Allahabad), and that qualification is recognised as equivalent to High School/Higher Secondary Examination by the General Administration Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide its order dated 13.05.1974. The Regional Assistant Director of Marketing Board, Kota Division, Kota, requisitioned the names of persons who passed Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag (Allahabad) before 28.06.1985 but at no point of time name of the petitioners were sponsored. The petitioners have enclosed with the writ petitions, copy of the letter dated 15.03.1990 of the Deputy Secretary (Agriculture), clarifying that such persons who have obtained the Certificate of Prathama Examination up-to 28.06.1985, would be only eligible for promotion on the post of L.D.C. because after 28.06.1985 the recognition was not in force. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of L.D.C.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the letter dated 15.03.1990 was written by the Deputy Secretary in the context of one Bhanwar Lal Son of Shri Padmaram Chowkidar, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sikar and not regarding the petitioners. According to Rule 65 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Mandi committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 and the Schedule-A appended thereto, the petitioners were not having any requisite qualification for promotion to the post of L.D.C. According to these Rules, a candidate should have possessed the qualification of Secondary from recognised Board. Since the qualification acquired by the petitioners was not Secondary, they could not be considered eligible for promotion to the post of L.D.C. In those Rules, there is no mention with regard to any equivalent qualification.
I have give my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
The letter dated 15.03.1990 of the Deputy Secretary, which is on record as Annexure-5, only clarifies the position in the context of one Bhanwar Lal Son of Shri Padmaram Chowkidar, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samit, Sikar, that such of the candidates who had obtained the Degree of Prathama prior to 28.06.1985, would be eligible as per Rule 12 (2) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices (Ministerial Staff Service) Rules, 1957, but the respondents contend that there are different sets of Rules with regard to promotion of the petitioners. Even those Rules, which the petitioners rely, permit the words ‘equivalent qualification’, are taken into consideration, the said Rules and the Schedule appended to different service Rules of the State Government, were amended by Notification dated 28.06.1985, thereby deleting the provision by which equivalent qualification was made admissible for eligibility. This question was examined by a Larger Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma & 13 Others Vs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board reported in RLW 1999 (1) Rajasthan 55, and the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid judgment also, controversy before the Larger Bench was with regard to equivalent qualifications prior to the date of enforcement of amended rules. It was held by the Larger Bench that amended qualifications shall not be applicable to the vacancies which occurred prior to the date of enforcement of the amended rule. Further, a rule can be amended retrospectively, but such retrospective effect cannot be allowed to take away vested right of citizens. However, it was held in Shankerlal Verma’s case (supra) that notification in fact merely provides that the purpose of amendment in the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria but because Government thought that it was not necessary to consider the candidates having equivalent qualifications, the Government cannot be forced to accept equivalence of certain qualifications and to accept such equivalence for all times to come. It does not take away from the candidate vested or accrued rights.
Moreover, in the present case the respondents contended that there is no provision in the Rules by which equivalent qualification has been accepted as valid for promotion. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be treated as eligible for promotion to the post of L.D.C. The case of the petitioners if examined in either way, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
//Jaiman//