HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4075/2002 Gopal Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Prem Sharma aged about 34 years, Resident of Prem Bhawan, Wazir Khan ki Gali, Qafila Bazar, Tonk ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Bani Park Jaipur Through its Registrar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to grant the seniority of the petitioner as per the provisional seniority list prepared by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after seeking permission from the Department, the petitioner acquired the qualification of Prathma and Madhyama for getting promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid qualification acquired by the petitioner, his name was placed at Sr. No.5 of the provisional Seniority List prepared by the respondents on 19.10.1995 for promotion on the post of LDC and his qualifications were (2 of 4) [CW-4075/2002] mentioned and reflected in front of his name i.e. Prathma and Madhyama. Learned counsel submits that when the final seniority list was prepared for the purpose of promotion exercise by the respondents, the name of the petitioner was deleted. Learned counsel submits that reason for deletion of the name of petitioner was that he submitted an application before the respondent- Department seeking permission to appear in the examination of Secondary and Higher Secondary. Learned counsel submits that Prathma and Madhyama are equivalent to High School and B.A. standard, respectively and the persons, who were junior to the petitioner are possessing the same qualification i.e. Prathma and Madhyama and were granted promotion on the post of LDC when the final seniority list was prepared on 14.11.1995. Learned counsel submits that there is no difference between the qualification acquired by the petitioner and the persons, junior to the petitioner even then the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion and the same has been declined in an arbitrary manner, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner never submitted an application for acquiring qualification of Prathma and Madhyama instead he submitted an application for acquiring the qualification of Secondary and Higher Secondary examination and that was the sole reason that his name was deleted from the final seniority list. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the respondents have not committed any error in preparing the final (3 of 4) [CW-4075/2002] seniority list and deleting the name of the petitioner from the same. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that when the respondents prepared the provisional seniority list for promotion of Class-IV employee to the post of LDC, the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.5 and his qualifications i.e. Prathma and Madhyama were reflected in the front of his name. The provisional seniority list further indicates that the persons junior to the petitioner were also in possession of the same qualification i.e. Prathma and Madhyama. 6. It is quite shocking and surprising that when the final seniority list was prepared, the name of the petitioner was deleted only on a technical count that the petitioner never submitted an application with the Department for acquiring the qualification of Prathma and Madhyama rather an application was submitted by the petitioner for acquiring the qualification of Secondary and High School. The qualification of Prathma and Madhyama are higher qualifications equivalent to High School and B.A. Standard. Once the persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion on the basis of the same qualification then there was no justification available with the respondents to deny promotion to the petitioner on the basis of same qualification acquired by the petitioner. 7. Hence, under these circumstances, the aforesaid action of the respondents is quite arbitrary, unjust, improper and (4 of 4) [CW-4075/2002] unconstitutional and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be rejected and deprecated by this Court. 8. In view of above, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of LDC with effect from the date when the case of the junior persons was considered for their promotion, on the same post with all consequential benefits. Needless to observe that the respondents would do the needful exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. All applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/24