CHORU LAL Vs. RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all above writ petitions, petitioners are challenging validity of order dated 20/6/2006 passed by Agriculture University, Bikaner, whereby, petitioners were reverted on the post of class IV employees on the ground that the qualification of Prathma acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad due to derecognition with effect from 28/6/1985 cannot be treated equivalent to Matriculation for the purpose of promotion on the post of LDC. The State Government in pursuance of judgment rendered by Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, which is decided along with case of Shanker Lal vs. RSEB passed an order on 7/3/2000 that those persons who were promoted on the basis of qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad after 28/6/1985 shall be reverted on the post of Class IV employees because the said qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has not been treated equivalent to the Secondary School Examination and moreover after de-recognition of the qualification from 28/6/1985 those persons who were promoted after 28/6/1985 were not treated qualified for promotion on the ground that as per judgment dated 11/9/1998 of Rajasthan High Court in Prem Kumar case and 13 others, the said qualification has been declared ineligibility for the purpose of promotion on the post of LDC after 28/6/85.

(2.) SINCE the point involved in all the above writ petitions is identical, therefore, for convenience all these writ petitions are decided by this common order. However, it is relevant to notice brief facts of each case. FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3235/2006 (Choru Lal vs. Raj. Agriculture University & Ors.)

(3.) IN this case petitioner no. 1 Hanuman Singh was initially appointed in the year 1978 and petitioner no. 2 Surendra Kumar Sharma was appointed in the year 1966 as class IV employees. While working on the post of Class IV employees petitioners acquired qualification of Prathma in the year 1985 and 1982 respectively. Thereafter, looking to their work and qualification, they were promoted on the post of LDC on 5/4/1990 and 27/4/1989 respectively. However, a notice dated 29/30. 3. 1994 was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee in view of the fact that Prathma qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been dereognised. Petitioners submitted their reply and submitted that since they are working on the post of LDC for years together and no misrepresentation or fraud has been committed by them at the time of their promotion, therefore, they should not be reverted to the post of Class IV employee. Thereafter, again on 17/4/2006 petitioners were issued similar notice on the ground that the Prathma qualification acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Allahabad has been derecognised, to which petitioners filed their reply but without considering the reply of petitioners vide impugned order dated 20/6/2006 they were reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV Employee. According to the petitioners respondents have illegally reverted them to the post of Class IV employee because there was no misrepresentation or fraud on their part in seeking promotion to the post of LDC, whereas, respondents themselves with open eyes after considering their qualification granted promotion on the post of LDC, therefore, they ought not be reverted after working on the post of LDC for long period, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.