ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present batch of writ petitions are based on similar facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

3. For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15496/2022 (Sukha Ram V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are being considered for deciding the controversy involved in the present case.

4. Briefly, the facts in the matter are that the petitioner-Sukha Ram was appointed on the post of Senior Teacher as per provisions of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Subsequently, the petitioner, being eligible for the post of School Lecturer, was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DPC’) convened as per Rule 24(2)(a) of the Rules by the respondents on 15.07.2016 against the vacancies of the year 2016-2017. The petitioner was promoted by the respondents vide order dated 30.08.2016 (Annex.2). In pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined on the promoted post of School Lecturer on 05.09.2016.

5. After assuming the charge of School Lecturer on 05.09.2016, the petitioner continued to serve the department on the said post and he was paid the salary and remuneration accordingly. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 09.07.2018 (Annex.7) reviewed the promotion year of the petitioner and granted him promotion on regular basis from the year 2018-19 instead of 2016-17. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 09.07.2018, the provisional seniority list was issued by the respondents reflecting the name of the petitioner showing his promotion year as 2018-19. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a detailed representation to the respondents, however, the promotion year of the petitioner was not changed. Thereafter, the provisional and final seniority list of the School Lecturer for the year 2016-17 was published by the respondents on 07.06.2022 (Annex.10) and 28.09.2022 (Annex.12) respectively. In these two seniority lists, the name of the petitioner was also not reflected.

6. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. In other writ petitions identical prayer has been made that the promotion year of the petitioners may be maintained as 2016-2017 for inclusion of their names in the provisional & final seniority lists against the vacancies for the year 2016-17 and their promotion year may not be shifted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners were eligible to be promoted on the post of School Lecturer and, thus, taking recourse of Rule 24 of the Rules, the duly constituted DPC considered the cases of the petitioners and, thereafter, promotion orders for the post of School Lecturer were issued. Learned counsel further submit that in pursuance of the promotion orders issued, the petitioners joined on their respective posts and rendering their services as a School Lecturer with effect from the date on which they assumed the charge of their promoted post. He further submits that the petitioners were duly paid the salary and remuneration for the post of School Lecturer since the date of their promotion. The petitioners are performing the same duties of School Lecturer as having performed by the persons who are regularly promoted and similarly situated to them.

8. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 09.07.2018 (Annex.7) changing the year of promotion to the subsequent years has been issued without giving any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He submits that the order dated 09.07.2018 entails civil and evil consequences, therefore, pre decisional hearing is necessary in consonance with the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may be allowed to be retained as School Lecturer from the promotion year of 2016-17.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respo