JUDGMENT P.S. Patankar, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging his order of reversion dated 28-3-1990, by which he came to be reverted from the post of Assistant to Record Clerk.
2. A few facts are as under : The petitioner was employed as a Peon with respondent No. 1 from 1-11-1971. The petitioner passed S.S.C. examination (new course) held in April 1979. He came to be promoted as a Record Clerk on 1-1-1983. The petitioner was interviewed for selection to the post of Assistant on 11-8-1989. He came to be selected for the said promotional post on 1-9-1989. He came to be appointed by the respondent No. 1 as an Assistant by the order dated 23-9-1989. By passing order on 28-3-1990, the petitioner came to be reverted to the post of Record Clerk.
3. The petitioner filed this petition on 17-5-1990. We may state here that the petitioner also passed departmental examination held on 12-7-1993 and the petitioner was again promoted as Assistant by order dated 25-2-1994 by respondent No. 1:
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (hereafter referred as "Rules of 1987") contemplate about promotion to the post of Assistant. There are four criteria of eligibility given. One of them is that a person should work as a Record Clerk for five years and should pass S.S.C. examination before 1979 and after 1979 one should pass H.S.C. examination (XIIth standard). Therefore, 1979 is the cut off date. It does not differentiate between S.S.C. old course or new course. In support of his submission he also pointed out the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Promotion) Regulation, 1976, (hereinafter for short "Regulations 1976") which provided for 5 years experience as record clerk and pass in S.S.C. On the contrary the order of reversion is sought to be supported by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not passed S.S.C. (Old course) prior to 1979 and hence was not eligible for promotion as an Assistant on 23-9-1989. Therefore, the order of reversion is legal and proper.
5. We shall first reproduce the relevant provisions. Rules of 1987 provide :--
"10. Assistants Record Clerks Graduate Record Clerks with 2 years service as Record Clerks;
Marks will be allotted as follows :
OR Seniority 15 Record Clerks possessing direct recruitment qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant from time to time Qualification 10 Work Record 30 Interview 30 OR 5 years service as Record Clerks and a pass in SSC exam., if qualified before 1979 otherwise HSC (Std. XII) OR 10 years' service as Record Clerk and a pass in the Departmental Test.
The regulations of 1976 provide as under :
No.
For Promotion to cadre of Assistants Categories eligible Conditions of eligibility 16 Record Clerks 5 years service as Record Clerk and a pass in the Secondary School Certificate or equivalent examination with English and Mathematics.
OR An employee possessing minimum qualifications which may be prescribed from time to time for direct recruitment to the cadre of Assistant.
OR 10 years' service as Record Clerk and a pass in departmental test.
6. It is clear from the regulations of 1976 that what was contemplated was only five years service as a Record Clerk and pass Secondary School Certificate examination or equivalent examination with English and Mathematics as eligibility for promotion. There is no dispute that S.S.C. (new course) came to be introduced from June, 1974. The old course was continued till October, 1979. Though the Rules of 1987 came to be introduced in 1987, still it provided five years service as a Record Clerk and pass in S.S.C. examination, if qualified before 1979 otherwise H.S.C. (XIIth standard). Therefore, proper interpretation in our opinion, will be those record clerks with 5 years experience, till 1979, whosoever passed S.S.C. examination irrespective of old or new course was eligible. But after 1979, a candidate should pass H.S.C. examination. This was done in 1987 because 1979 was the last year when S.S.C. examination in old course was held. It was possible in 1987 when the Rules were introduced say S.S.C. (old course). But this has not been done. This speaks about the intention. The old and new course were running parallel from 1974 to 1979. Therefore, we cannot accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. The interpretation we are seeking to put on this Rule has been put by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1012 of 1994 dated 12th August, 1996. In the said case also the petitioner had passed S.S.C. certificate examination (Xth standard) i.e. new course held in October-November 1979. The result thereof were declared in January 1980. The petitioner was working as a Record Clerk in 1985 and was continued in the said post. He was not considered for promotion. He was praying for consideration for the promotional post of Assistant. He was not considered on the ground that the results of said S.S.C. examination held in October-November 1979 were declared in January 1980. The Division Bench considered Clause 10 of the Schedule to the Rules and held thus :--
"......... This Clause 10 of the Schedule to the Rules itself indicates that alternatively a person passing H.S.C. examination is eligible for the promotional post of Assistant, which is indicative of the fact that will the introduction of H.S.C. examination, S.S.C. examination was the only eligibility qualification. It also stands established that the last examination of S.S.C. was held in the month of October/November 1979. With this backdrop what appears to us is that all those who have gone through the examination of S.S.C. and appeared for the examination before the end of 1979 and who were then declared successful, have to be read as "passed in S.S.C. examination or qualified before 1979.".........."
7. The learned counsel for the respondent first tried to point out that there is some error in the judgment of the Division Bench in mentioning as the petitioner had passed new course. But it is admitted that this was mentioned in the petition and was not disputed by L.I.C. of India in the reply. Hence we cannot accept this as an error in the judgment. Further attempt is made to contend that it was the case where result was declared in 1980 and hence in that case the petitioner was not considered for the post of promotion. Hence point involved is different. But in the present case when the petitioner has already passed said S.S.C. examination prior to 1979. Further, it is clear that on that basis he was also promoted on 23-9-1989 and without any hearing or opportunity to him all of a sudden the order of reversion dated 28-3-1990 came to be passed. We find that there was no ground to revert him. The ground sought to be put forward is a lame one. Hence, we pass following order:--
Rule is made absolute. The impugned order of reversion dated 28-3-1990 is set aside. The respondent is directed to treat the petitioner as an Assistant and post him accordingly forthwith and further to grant him all service benefits as an Assistant.
The learned counsel for the respondents prays for stay of this order for a period of four weeks. This order is stayed for a period of four weeks. However, the respondents are directed to give effect to this order within two weeks thereafter.