[2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6910/2021 1. Boudh Kuldeep Harjivanlal S/o Shri Harjivanlal, aged about 31 Years, R/o A-31, Surya Nagar, Alwar, earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 2. Ankit Palawat S/o Shri Gajendra Singh Palawat, aged about 33 Years, R/o C-18, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Corporation-Heritage Jaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 3. Vijay Singh Meena S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Meena, aged about 36 Years, R/o 103, Mata Vaishnopuram Colony, Near Khatipura Railway Station, Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Directorate of Local Bodies Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 4. Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, aged about 38 Years, R/o C-9, Shivpuri, Buddhsinghpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Directorate of Local Bodies, Rajasthan Jaipur and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 5. Nitin Meena S/o Shri B.L. Meena, aged about 43 Years, R/o 20-A, Vivekanand Colony, Civil Lines, Tonk earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Director of Local Bodies, Jaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 6. Anurag Mishra S/o Shri Bipin Kumar Mishra, aged about 33 Years, R/o SP-4B, Bhabha Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council Tonk (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] 7. Shraddha Jain D/o Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, aged about 37 Years, R/o 37-Mrudia Jain Colony, New Bhopalpura, Udaipur earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Udaipur Municipal Corporation Udaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 8. Pramod Patel S/o Shri Amrit Lal Patel, aged about 37 Years, R/o 65, Kumharwada Road, Nichla Kherwara, Tehsil Kherwara, Udaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 9. Suman Choudhary D/o Shri Hari Ram Gwala, aged about 37 Years, R/o F-9/465, Chitrakoot Nagar, Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council Pali (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 10. Ashish Kumar Singh S/o Shri Satya Prakash Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o H. No. 58, Kaithiyana Unnao (209801) Uttar Pradesh. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council Dholpur (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 11. Ashish Lodha S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Lodha, aged about 33 Years, R/o C-279, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council, Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 12. Farsaram Bishnoi S/o Shri Lunaram Bishnoi, aged about 34 Years, R/o W-10, Water Works Colony, Phed Colony, Wad No. 65, (New) Sriganganagar. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council Sriganganagar (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. 13. Deepak Jangir S/o Shri Madan Lal Jangir, aged about 35 Years, R/o 71, Sindhi Colony, Near UIT Office Sriganganagar. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Urban Improvement Trust Sriganganagar (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] 14. Narendra Kumar Nat S/o Shri Roopa Devi Nat, aged about 38 Years, R/o 928, Ground Floor, Shantinagar, Durgapura Jaipur. earlier posted as Town Planning Assistant, Municipal Council Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) and now promoted as Assistant Town Planner w.e.f. 01.04.2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary Government of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur (Raj) 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur (Raj) 3. The Director, Directorate of Local Bodies Rajasthan Jaipur. 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Directorate of Local Bodies Rajasthan Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Assistant Additional Advocate General HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/11/2025 1. The present writ petition comes up on the third stay application, however, the counsels were heard on merits. 2. The writ petitioners have during the pendency of this writ petition, amended the writ petition twice. The original challenge was to the notification dated 06.11.2019 by which the criteria for promotion from the post of Town Planning Assistant (for short, ‘TPA’) to the post of Assistant Town Planner (for brevity, ‘ATP’) in [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] the Rajasthan Municipal (Administrative and Technical) Service Rules, 1963 was amended and 10 years' service experience was inserted as a minimum requirement for promotion from TPA to ATP while the said writ petition was pending. The State came out with the reply that in consonance with other service rules like the Rajasthan Technical Service Rules, they have decided to reduce the experience requirement from 10 years to 5 years and an amended notification was issued on 09.07.2021 to the said effect. It was contended by the State that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous on account of the new notification. Based on the notification dated 09.07.2021, the writ petitioners were further promoted to the post of ATP. However, they made an amendment in the writ petition and sought to challenge the notification dated 09.07.2021, which was allowed by this Court after the amended writ petition was filed. The State Government re-considered the matter and reduced the experience clause from 5 years to 2 years vide notification dated 29.09.2023. The writ petitioners were however not satisfied with the new amended provision of 2 years to the extent that they filed an amended application seeking amendment of the writ petition and in the amended writ petition, which was allowed, they have prayed that the notification dated 29.09.2023 should be given retrospective effect with effect from 06.11.2019 and the two years' experience clause should be read retrospectively from 06.11.2019 and to that extent the notification of 29.09.2023 should be declared ultra vires. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the note-sheets of the file, whereby, the aforesaid amendments were made and submits that clear notings have come on record to [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] reflect that on account of certain officers' mistakes, the experience clause was changed and, therefore, once the State realized its mistake the experience clause has been corrected to 2 years which originally should have been continued. The subsequent amendments, whereby the 2 years’ experience clause was restored, should be treated retrospectively from the date the first amendment of 2019 has come into force. Accordingly, he submits that if the 2 years' experience had been counted as from 2019, the petitioners would have been promoted, as they possess the requisite experience and therefore, would not have been denied their rightful placement in the seniority. He submits that during the course of pendency of the writ petition, direct recruitees have also joined on the post of ATP and on account of subsequent late promotion of the petitioners because of counting of their period of experience as five years, they have been placed below the direct recruitees ATP. Due to delay of 80 days, they have to pay huge cost and therefore, Court must come down heavily on the State and read out the amendment dated 29.09.2023 to be from the day when the original amendment was made i.e. 06.11.2019. He submits that consequential benefits should also be given to the writ petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State, having taken a call in the writ petition, has decided to reduce the experience benefit. If such reduction has been made, the same cannot be said to be on account of any error on the part of any individual, but the decision has been taken once they have reduced it to 5 years and still there was a demand that the same should be reduced further they have therefore, again taken a [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] decision and reduced it to 2 years. However, there is no occasion to make it retrospective. He submits that all these writ petitioners have already been promoted in the year 2022 after the amendment was made, reducing the experience requirement from 10 years to 5 years. Thus, no loss has been caused to the writ petitioners. He further submits that there is no right of promotion available to the writ petitioners, and it is their wishful thinking that had the amendment been made retrospectively from 06.11.2019, they would have been promoted in 2019 alone, as there is no right of promotion available. 5. We have considered that it is a settled law in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 201 that no person had a right of promotion, the only right available is consideration for promotion. This consideration of promotion would be in accordance with the rules as of the day when the post is available. Thus, as in the year 2019, the post that was available would have been different according to the rule that existed in 2019. The rule framed at that time was to provide eligibility of at least 10 years' experience. Although the challenge was made to this before this Court, there was no interim order passed and during the pendency, the State has already amended the said rule reducing it to 5 years. As soon it was reduced to 5 years' experience requirement, the petitioners have already been considered and they have been promoted in the year 2022. Seeking a claim for retrospectivity of a subsequent amendment of the year 2023 with effect from 2019 only to get a consequential promotion from an earlier hearing is a far fetched claim. As we [2025:RJ-JP:47953-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-6910/2021] have held that once there is no right of promotion, the claim for retrospective reduced experience requirement is wholly unjustified. The provision of the law relating to retrospectivity has been laid down and it has been held that any such rule which lays down criteria of promotion or seniority cannot be made retrospective as it affects those who were already given their substantive right and new rights cannot be created in relation to seniority, promotion and other benefits retrospectively as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 623. 21. In B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana a Constitution Bench of this Court, while holding that the power exercised by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 partakes the characteristics of the legislative, not executive, power and it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision, has said that when the retrospective effect extends over a long period, the date from which the rules are made to operate must be shown to bear, either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence, reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules. (SCR p. 1068: SCC p. 557, para 76) 6. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition challenging the notification dated 29.09.2023 to the extent that it should be retrospective in nature. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. 9. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DEEPA /29