[2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 630/2023 IN D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25241/2018 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Finance, And Development Cooperative Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Finance And Development Cooperative Corporation Limited, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. General Manager, Rajasthan Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Finance And Development Cooperative Corporation Limited, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Joint Secretary Finance (Rules), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Appellants/Respondents Versus Satya Narain Joshi S/o. Late Sh. Govind Narain Joshi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o. 3804 Deenanath Ji Ka Rasta, Near Vishnu Marg, Purani Basti, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Non-Appellants/Petitioner For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav for Mr. Bharat Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/04/2026 For the reasons stated in the application no.1/2026 filed by the appellants for early listing and final disposal of the appeal at [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] this stage, the same is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the special appeal writ is heard on its merit today itself. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (for brevity, ‘LDC’) with the appellant no.2-Corporation (for brevity, ‘Corporation’) vide order dated 08.08.1989 pursuant whereupon, he joined as such on 18.08.1989. Thereafter, the Corporation, vide its letter dated 28.04.1995, invited applications from the LDC working with it for appointment to the post of Junior Accountant. The respondent applied and was selected for appointment vide order dated 08.05.1995 whereby, six persons were given appointment as Junior Accountant; but, the respondent was kept awaiting posting order. Consequent to creation of one post of Stenographer by the Corporation vide order dated 31.05.1995 after abolition of a post of LDC, the respondent was appointed as the Hindi Stenographer on the newly created post vide order dated 31.05.1995 and was posted at Headquarter. A writ petition no.4904/1995 came to be filed by some of the employees of the Corporation working on the post of LDC challenging the promotion granted to the respondents no.2 to 8 vide order dated 08.05.1995. It may be worthy to note here that the respondent was impleaded as the respondent no.7 in that writ petition. The writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2009 whereby, the promotion/appointment order dated 08.05.1995 was [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] quashed and set aside. The D.B. Special Appeal No.4/2010 preferred by some of the affected candidates came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, vide order impugned dated 21.05.2018, the respondent, along with some other employees, was demoted to the post of Junior LDC (LDC Grade II) which was successfully challenged by him by way of the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.05.2023, impugned in the special appeal. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellants, inviting attention of this Court towards the joining report of the respondent dated 08.05.1995 placed on record of the writ petition as Annexure A/1 along with the additional affidavit dated 07.02.2020, would submit that since the respondent has also joined as Junior Accountant pursuant to order dated 08.05.1995, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2009 allowing the writ petition no.4904/1995 was applicable upon him as well. He further submitted that operation of the judgement dated 30.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the special appeal preferred against the order dated 08.09.2009 has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal No.9081/2020. He, therefore, prayed that the special appeal be allowed, the judgement impugned dated 11.05.2023 be quashed and set aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent be dismissed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, prayed for dismissal of the special appeal. Heard. Considered. [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] A perusal of the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Corporation and subject matter of challenge in the writ petition preferred by the respondent, reflects that he was demoted on account of order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition no.4904/1995 whereby, the order dated 08.05.1995 was quashed and set aside and dismissal of the D.B. Special Appeal preferred thereagainst. Thus, the only reason which prevailed with the appellants for demoting the respondent was quashing of the order dated 08.05.1995 by this Court in the writ petition no.4904/1995. However, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent, has observed in Para 6 as under:- “6. It is worthy to note here that while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4904/95 on 08.09.2009, this Court clarified the situation with regard to the petitioner in para No. 13 which reads thus: 13) Coming now to the argument raised by Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.7, as already noticed, this court passed interim- order on18/8/2008 only in relation to respondents No.1 to 3, 4 and 5 and respondent No.7 Shri Satya Narain Joshi was not one of the applicants. Shri Satya Narain Joshi did not accept his promoton/appointment on the post of Junior Accountant and in fact, it is admitted case of the parties that he never joined that post. Corporation has totally misconstrued and misapplied the order of this court dated18/8/2008 in so far as Shri Satya Narain Joshi is concerned, who admittedly was lateron promoted on the post of Stenographer in adifferent stream on 31/5/1995 and not only started getting salary of that post but also received all the increments and benefit of pay revision including Selection Scale on completion of period of 9 years on that post. To that extent, action of the respondent Corporation also deserves to be declared illegal.” [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] While dealing with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.4/2010, it was observed by the learned Single Judge as under:- “7. It has been brought to the notice of this court that the order dated 08.09.2009, passed by this Court has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 4/2010, decided on 30.01.2020 by observing thus:- “So far as case of Respondent No.8- Stayanargayan is concerned, he did not accept his promotion/appointment to the post of Jr.Accountant and admittedly, had never joined the said post. As far as joining of Respondent No. 8 as Stenographer on 31.05.1995 is concerned, the same is not under challenge in this appeal.” 8. Meaning thereby that Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was never appointed or promoted on the post of Jr. Accountant, rather the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer on31.05.1995. The documents annexed with the writ petition clearly satisfies the above facts. Since the benefits of first Selection Scale on completion of nine years of service on the post of Stenographer was granted to the petitioner way back in the year 2005 and his (7 of 7) name was appeared in the seniority list published by the respondents in the year 2009 and the seniority list clearly indicates that petitioner was working on the post of Stenographer since 31.05.1995.” From the aforesaid observations in the order impugned dated 11.05.2023, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has, after [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] taking into consideration the observations made in the order dated 08.09.2009 allowing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4904/1995 as also in the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the Special Appeal No.4/2010, has categorically held that the respondent was kept out of purview of the aforesaid order/judgement inasmuch as he was not promoted to the post of Junior Accountant vide order dated 08.05.1995 rather, was appointed to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 31.05.1995, had joined as such, was extended benefit of first selection scale on completion of nine years of service counting his length of service with effect from 31.05.1995, was accorded grade increments and his name figured in the seniority list of the Stenographer published in the year 2009 reflecting his working on this post since 31.05.1995. In the conspectus of the aforesaid findings, we find no fault with the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and are of the considered view that it was not open for the appellants to demote the respondent vide order dated 21.05.2018 relying on the order dated 08.09.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4904/1995 which was upheld by the Division Bench vide its order dated 30.01.2020 while dismissing the Special Appeal No.4/2010 inasmuch as the same were made specifically inapplicable to him. It may be pertinent to mention here that initially, the Special Appeal Writ No. 04/2010 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.04.2018 as mentioned in the order dated 21.05.2018; but, it appears that the same was recalled and the special appeal writ was restored and was decided ultimately on its merit vide order dated 30.01.2020. [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] Although, the appellants have, in their reply to the writ petition, denied that the respondent ever joined as Junior Accountant; but, as per Annexure A/1, he had joined as Junior Accountant but, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out its impact on the issue involved herein in view of the specific observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in its order dated 08.09.1995 dismissing the writ petition no.4904/1995 as also by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 30.01.2020 dismissing the Special Appeal No.4/2010 as already taken note of hereinabove. Further, it is reflected from the order dated 08.05.1995 submitted by the respondent along with the memo of writ petition as Annexure 4 that while promoting him to the post of Junior Accountant along with six other employees, although, they were given posting, he was kept awaiting posting order. Thereafter, vide order no.5303 dated 31.05.1995 (Annexure 5), while abolishing a post of LDC, a post of Stenographer was created and the respondent was appointed on this newly created post vide order dated 31.05.1995 (Annexure 6) and was posted at the Corporation Headquarter. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the order dated 31.05.1995, the respondent joined as the Hindi Stenographer on that very day. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to address the Court that when, vide order dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure 4) the respondent was placed under awaiting posting order, how he could have joined on the same day without issuance of the posting order and further, that it has any bearing on the controversy involved, especially in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove. Therefore, we [2026:RJ-JP:14076-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-630/2023] find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as his another submission based on interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby, operation of the judgement dated 30.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No.4/2010, is concerned, we are at loss to decipher as to how does it help the case of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants, except bringing to notice of this Court of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, failed to convince us as to how it has any impact on the issue involved. The learned Single Judge as also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court have unequivocally held, while allowing the writ petition preferred by the affected employees and dismissing the special appeal preferred thereagainst by the employees promoted vide order dated 08.05.1995, that the respondent was not promoted to the post of Stenographer by the same stream and was, therefore, not affected by the orders passed in the writ petition and the special appeal. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, in our considered view, stay on operation of the judgement of the Division Bench would not affect the rights of the respondent. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we find this special appeal writ to be devoid of merit. Resultantly, this special appeal writ is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/29