JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order Annexure-7 dated 2.6.80 and Annexure-13 dated 24.11.80.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk at Municipal Board, Jalore, while working as LDC he made an application dated 18.7.75 to the Municipal Board, Bhinmal stating that he is eligible for being appointed on the post of Assessor and post of Assessor is lying vacant at Municipal Board, Bhinmal, he therefore, requested that he may be given appointment on the post of Assessor. The Municipal Board recommended the case of the petitioner in its resolution dated 6.8.75 and consequently, the petitioner was appointed as an Assessor on the post lying vacant at the Municipal Board, Bhinmal on 8.8.75. The Municipal Board, Bhinmal, after finding the work of the petitioner satisfactory, confirmed him on the post vide resolution dated 10.7.77 (Annexure 6). It is averred by the petitioner that on account of personal animosity, the Chairman of the Board had at one time recommended for reverting the petitioner from the post of Assessor, the Administrator, Municipal Board, Bhinmal, vide his letter dated 1.1.79 brought this fact to the notice of the State Government that proposal for reversion of the petitioner was made by earstwhile Chairman due to personal animosity and the proposal was sent to the Government by earstwhile Executive Officer on his own without bringing it to the knowledge of the Administrator. He also opined that the work of Narpat Chand was satisfactory and looking to the satisfactory functioning of the petitioner he has been confirmed on the post. He, therefore, recommended that the proposal sent fay the Chairman be filed. However, vide Annexure 7 dated 2.6.80, the Government informed that the post of Assessor at Municipal Board, Bhinmal has been abolished and by treating the petitioner to be temporary he was ordered to be reverted to the post of LDC. Against the order dated 2.5.80, the Municipal Board, Bhinmal, requested to the Government that the post is required to be continued at the Board and the Board has made necessary provisions in its budget for the post for the year 1980-81 relating to the order post concerned and, therefore, the order be kept in abeyance and sanction the continuance of the post. This request of the Municipal Board was turned down by the order Annexure-13 dated 24.11.80. Faced with impending reversion, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order Annexure 7 by which the post of Assessor has been abolished and the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted.
3. No reply on behalf of the State has been filed. However, the petitioner has further placed on record Annexure-14, the final seniority list of the Assessors working at various Municipalities in Rajasthan, Annexure-15 by which the respective Municipal Boards were directed to confirm the said employees who have been appointed in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate and Ministerial Rules, 1963 with reference to Rule 27(2), This was to cover the employees appointed upto 31.12.84 and regularised by order dated 18.4.87. The petitioner has further produced Annexure 16 dated 16.5.84 whereby the Municipal Board, Jalore passed a resolution to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assessor after obtaining no objection and consequently, by order dated 4.2.86 the petitioner has been transferred from. Municipal Board, Bhinmal to Municipal Board, Jalore where the post of Assessor existed. The petition was admitted on 5.12.80 and in the meanwhile status quo regarding the reversion of the petitioner was maintained. Thus, the order of reverting the petitioner from the post of Assessor to the post of LDC was not given effect to. The present position is that the petitioner is working as Assessor at Municipal Board, Jalore where the post of Assessor is existing.
4. Inspite of the service, no reply has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the material produced by him, it is apparent that the abolition of the post was not a bonafide exercise of power in as much as the concerned Municipality was constantly making a request regarding the necessity of an Assessor for continuing the work of assessing house tax and abolition of the post has adversely affected its revenue. It has alternatively been contended that even if the abolition of the post is to be upheld, the petitioner could not have been reverted. It is apparent that the appointment of the Assessor is being made by the State and a seniority list of Assessors is maintained Statewise and not Municipalitywise, the State Government has necessary powers to transfer any of the employee of the municipalities from one place to another. The petitioner has made clear allegations that by taking the Statewise seniority list persons junior to him have been retained on the post, petitioner has been reverted. Names of Rajendra Singh Choudhary, Vijay Singh and Amer Nath have been cited illustrately who have been made respondents No. 3, 4&5..The action of the State in reverting the petitioner while keeping the persons junior to him on the post of Assessors is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which speaks of hostile discrimination. The fact that the seniority list is prepared Statewise is further fortified by the final seniority list Annexure 14 dated 14.11.90 issued by the State Government. It has also been contended that while the petitoner has been allowed to continue on the post of Assessor, and subsequently appointed as Assessor in Municipal Board, Jalore against existing vacancy, he should not now be reverted to the post of LDC with reference to order dated 2.6.80 (Annx.7).
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and counsel appearing for Municipal Board, Bhinmal have candidly Stated that in view of the fact that the seniority of the Assessors is maintained statewise, on abolition of a post of Assessor in one of the municipalities cannot ipso facto result in the reversion of the holder of the post to the lower post and in such cases only junior most person in the service could have been reverted if no post was lying vacant in any of the municipality where he could be adjusted by transfer.
7. Having considered contentions raised before me, I am of the opinion that petition deserves to be allowed. The uncontroverted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assessor in 1975 and was confirmed in 1977 by an unanimous resolution of the Board. This is also undisputed that as on the date when the Annexure 7 was passed, the petitioner was not juniormost Assessor working on the post of Assessor at various municipalities and it cannot be denied that on the abolition of the post, the petitioner could have been transferred to some other municipality where the post of Assessor was lying vacant. At any rate, only juniormost person working on the posts of Assessor in any of the municipality in Rajasthan should have suffered the reversion as a result of abolition of the post. When the State is maintaining the seniority of the Assessors at the State level, it is not open for the State to have reverted the petitioner to the lower post while keeping the persons continuing on the post who have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner on such posts. Moreover, the fact remains that in the year 1984, the petitioner was again recommended for being appointed on the post of Assessor at Municipal Board, Jalore and on its request, the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Board, Bhinmal to Municipal Board, Jalore by the order of the Government and he has been allowed to continue at a place where the post of Assessor is existing, and as on today, the petitioner is working against the said post which is existing.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rule is made absolute, order Annexure 7 dated 2.6.80 to the extent it orders reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assessor to LDC is quashed and petitioner is allowed to continue to hold the post of Assessor at Municipal Board, Jalore.
9. There will be no order as to costs.