1997 Supreme(Raj) 1197
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
V.S.Kokje, Arun Madan, JJ.
Hanuman Lal Harijan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 888 of 1996.
Decided On : 29-05-1997
The derecognition of a qualification has a prospective effect and does not affect qualifications acquired before the date of derecognition.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - CLASS IV EMPLOYEE - ELIGIBILITY - RULES OF 1957 AND RULES OF 1963 - APPLICABILITY - RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATION - EFFECT OF DERECOGNITION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Class IV employee in the veterinary hospital, challenged the decision of the Single Judge dismissing his writ petition seeking promotion to the post of LDC. The appellant had passed the 'prathma' examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1984, which was recognized as equivalent to Secondary School Certificate. However, this qualification was derecognized with effect from 1.4.85. The appellant contended that he was eligible for promotion under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (Rules of 1957) and Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (Rules of 1963), while the respondents argued that the appellant was governed by the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (Rules of 1977) and was not eligible for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of LDC under the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1963. The Court found that the appellant satisfied the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules and that he had put in the required five years of service. The Court also held that the appellant was not governed by the Rules of 1977, which applied specifically to employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, as the appellant was working in a hospital and not in the office of the Animal Husbandry Department. The Court further held that the derecognition of the appellant's qualification with effect from 1.4.85 did not render it invalid for the purpose of promotion, as the appellant had acquired the qualification prior to the date of derecognition.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was eligible for promotion to the post of LDC under the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1963? 2. Whether the appellant was governed by the Rules of 1977? 3. Whether the derecognition of the appellant's qualification rendered it invalid for the purpose of promotion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant was eligible for promotion to the post of LDC under the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1963 because: - The appellant satisfied the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules. - The appellant had put in the required five years of service. - The appellant was not governed by the Rules of 1977, which applied specifically to employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, as the appellant was working in a hospital and not in the office of the Animal Husbandry Department. 2. The Court held that the appellant was not governed by the Rules of 1977 because: - The Rules of 1977 applied specifically to employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, while the appellant was working in a hospital. - The appellant's post was not included in the Schedule of posts specified in the Rules of 1977. 3. The Court held that the derecognition of the appellant's qualification with effect from 1.4.85 did not render it invalid for the purpose of promotion because: - The appellant had acquired the qualification prior to the date of derecognition. - The derecognition of a qualification has a prospective effect and does not affect qualifications acquired before the date of derecognition.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Single Judge, and granted the reliefs prayed for in the petition.
JUDGMENT
1. - A notice to show cause as to why the special appeal be not admitted was issued in response to which the respondents have appeared. With the consent of the parties, the special appeal was heard finally at the admission stage.
2. The appellant Hanuman Lal has challenged the decision of learned Single Judge, dismissing his writ petition. He entered the service of State of Rajasthan as Class IV employee in the veterinary hospital, Hingoniya, after being selected by recruitment Board on 10.3.80. Later on his service was extended vide order dated 23.1.83 until further orders. He could continue his study, after obtaining permission from the concerning authorities, and passed Prathma examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1984. This, according to the petitioner was recognised equivalent qualification to that of Secondary Examination or. Matriculation. After completing 5 years service as Class IV employee, the petitioner claimed himself to be eligible for promotion to the post of LDC. He made representations, in this regard periodically and in response, received two letters from respondent, one dated 1.6.90 and the other dated 6.11.90 informing him that the educational qualification he held, had been derecognised with effect from 1.4.85 and as he was holding the post of Sweeper, which was not the post from which promotion to the post of LDC could be granted under the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules of 1957'), he was not eligible for promotion to the post of LDC. After receiving these communications, the petitioner again represented to the authorities contending that as he had acquired the qualification before its derecognition and as the post he held was also a Class IV post like the post of Jamadar, Daftari, Chowkidar and Chaprasi, under the Service Rules he was clearly eligible for promotion. He also served a notice through his advocate demanding justice and ultimately he filed the writ petition.
3. In response to writ petition also, the respondents took the same stand and denied that the petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of LDC. It was reiterated by the respondent that the educational qualification of petitioner having passed 'prathma' examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1984 was not equivalent to Secondary School Certificate of Board of Rajasthan, Ajmer, the qualification having been derecognised w.e.f. 1.4.85. It was also contended that there was no vacancy in the post of LDC of the year 1985 or before, and therefore, a qualification held prior to 1985 could not be taken to be a recognised qualification for the purpose of appointment/promotion to the post of LDC, which came into existence after 1.4.85.
4. It was also contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1957') and Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1963'), because he was governed by Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1977'). It was also contended that the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1963 applied to general categories, while the Rules of 1977 specifically applied to employees of Animal Husbandry Department. It was further contended that under the Rules of 1977 which applied to employees of Animal Husbandry department promotion to the post of LDC could only be made from the post of Peon/Jamadar/Daftari etc., and that to the post of Dresser/Laboratory Attendant. A sweeper can only be given promotion to the post of Jamadar under these Rules. It was also contended that the Rules of 1957 as well as Rules of 1963 were applicable only to employees serving in the offices of State Government and not in the hospitals. Since the petitioner was workin
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
