STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIV KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE special appeals have been filed against the orders of the learned single Judge by which the writ petitions have been allowed and the appellants have been directed- to consider the respondent-petitioners candidatures for the promotional posts of lower division clerk. The facts of all these cases are almost similar and as such these special appeals are being disposed of by this common order. (2) Prior to 1978, the petitioner-respondents were appointed as Class IV employees in different departments of the Government of Rajasthan. While they were in service, they passed Prathama Examination held by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad/prayag prior to the year 1985. By notification No. Shri/pa. 4/7/sa Pra/60 dated 13. 05. 1974, the Government of Rajasthan in the Department of General Administration, Jaipur, Prathma of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was recognised as equivalent to that of High School/matriculation. On its basis, the petitioner claimed their promotion under Section 7 (3), Rajasthan Subordinate Offices (Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules' ). The appellants rejected their claims on the ground that by Notification No. F. 3 (45) DOP/a-II/84 dated 28. 06. 1985 issued by the Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, the said Hindi qualification which was equivalent to that of Matriculation/high School has been de-recognised. Thereafter,the petitioners filed writ petitions for directing the appellants to consider their cases for the promotion to the posts of lower division clerks from the date they have passed the said Hindi examination. The appellants filed their replies, seriously opposing the writ petitions. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were allowed and directions were issued by the learned single Judge as said above. (3) We have heard the officer-in-charge, Shri Manisha Ram Bhati and the Legal Assistant of the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur and have perused the records. Advocates including the Government Advocates are on strike. (4) It is not in dispute that all these cases are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices-Ministerial Staff/rules, 1957. Rule 7 and Rule 12 deal with the method of recruitment in respect of and academic qualification required for each post. Rule 12 (2), as stood prior to 28. 06. 1985, ran as follows: " (2) A candidate for direct recruitment to the category of lower division clerk must have passed the High School or Secondary Examination or Praveshika Examination (With English) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Board, or of a University or Board recognised by the Government for the purpose of this rule or must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent to that of Matriculation. " By notification No. F. 3 (45) DOP/a. 2/84 dated 28. 06. 1985, the last clause of Rule 12 (2) "or must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent to Matriculation" has been deleted. (5) By Notification No. Shi. P/a4/7/sa. Pra/kha/60 dated 13. 05. 1974, the Prathama. Examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was recognised as equivalent to Matriculation/high School. The case of the petitioners, (except Shiv Karan of Spl. Appeal No. 6 of 1990 and writ petition No 1500/89) is that they had passed Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad prior to 1985. The case of the petitioner Shiv Karan is that he had passed Prathama Examination in the year 1984 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag. It is thus clear that all the petitioners-respondents had passed Prathama Examination prior to the issuance of the said notification dated 28. 06. 1985, de-recognising Prathama Examination as equivalent to High School/matriculation. In other words, all the petitioners had acquired the said equivalent qualification before it was de-recognised. It cannot be denied that they possess qualification equivalent to High School/matriculation. The equivalence given to the Prathama Examination with that of the High School/matriculation is no more available to those who have passed it after 28. 06. 1985. It would be unjust for the petitioner-respondents if their qualification of Prathama obtained prior to 1985, is not taken into consideration for the purpose of their promotion. It has been observed in Suresh Pal vs. State of Haryana, (1) as follows: " The certificate course in Physical Education in Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra was recognised by the Government of Haryana in 1975 for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. On the basis of this recognition granted by the State of Haryana to the certificate course of physical education in this Institute in Amravati, the petitioners joined the certificate course and were receiving instructions in this Institution until 9. 01. 1985 when the State of Haryana de-recognised the certificate course with the result that the certificates obtained by the petitioners at the end of the certificate course became useless for obtaining service as Physical Training Instructor in Haryana. The petitioners, therefore, filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a writ directing the State of Haryana to recognise the certificates obtained by them, because they had joined the course on the basis of the recognition given by the State of Haryana and the recognition was in force at the time when they joined the course. Writ Petition was however rejected summarily by the High Court and hence the present appeal by special leave. We are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Govt. of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was de-recognised by the State Government on 9. 01. 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Govt. to recognise the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after 9. 01. 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said institute would be of no avail. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. " (6) The same view has been taken by the different Benches of this Court in the following cases: Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2), Deen Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan (3), State of Rajasthan vs. Lal Chand (4), Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (5), Amarchand vs. State of Rajas-than, (6), Mohammed Zafar vs. State of Rajasthan (7), Gilya Ram vs. R. P. S. C. (8), Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan (9), Gordhan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (10), Shankerlal Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (11), Chand Mal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (12), Prahlad Das Panwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (13), Ganpat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (14), Govind Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (15), Rameshwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (16) and Arjun Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others We do not find any reason to take a different view and reiterate the view taken in these decisions. The doctrine of Stare-decisis is also applicable here. It promotes predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability. (7) The main ground taken in the memos of special appeals is that after the amendment of Rule 12 (2) of the Rules by notification dated June 28, 1985 a candidate for direct recruitment to the category of L. D. Cs. must have passed the High School, or Secondary Examination or Praveshika Examination, it does not provide for any equivalent academic qualification, admittedly the petitioners have not passed either High School or Higher Secondary or Praveshika and as such they cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks. The literal interpretation of the Rule would be unjust to the petitioner-respondents. As soon as the petitioner-respondents passed the Prathama Examination prior to 1985 they would be deemed to have passed High School in view of the said notification dated 13. 5. 1974. The said notification dated June 28, 1985 was not retrospective in effect. It did not effect the equivalence which was earlier granted by the notification dated 13. 5. 1974. (8) It may be mentioned here that the Government of Rajasthan in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Jaipur has also issued Notification No. F. 3 (45)/personnei/ka-2/85 dated May 07, 1988 clarifying that the candidates who had acquired Hindi or Sanskrit qualification equivalent to High School prior to June 28, 1985 would be eligible for the appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerks under the rules. It would be best to quote it here in extenso. It runs as under:

(2.) Varnacular Text