JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. with the averments that he was appointed as a Class IV employee by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Fatehnagar (Udaipur) (respondent No. 2) on November 5, 1975, since October, 1979 he is also working as "Neelam-karta", he has passed the Prathama examination in the year 1978, other Class IV employees i.e. Durga Singh Solanki, Madan Lal, Kishan Lal Kumar and Virendra Kumar who similarly passed Prathama examination have been promoted by the respondent No. 2 and several other Class IV employees passing Prathama examination have been promoted by other Krishi Upaj Mandis. 2. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Fatehnagar (respondent No. 2) has filed its reply admitting that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the year 1975, he has passed Prathama examination, he is also working as "Neelam- karta", Class IV employee Virendra Kumar was promoted by the Director, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur and he has subsequently been transferred and Chanchal Kumar is serving on the post of L.D.C. prior to coming into force of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets (Mandi Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules'). It has further been averred that under the Rules the petitioner cannot be promoted as admittedly he has not passed secondary or high school examination from the recognised Board as required under the Rules, Durga Singh Solanki, Madan Lal and Kishan Lal had never been its employees,s Marketing Committee is a body corporate, it is independent to each other, the petitioner has concealed these facts and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and no direction can be issued against the provisions of the Rules. 3. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner along with a copy of the order No. Ni.Kri.vi./P-2/Mal/230-41 dated January 4, 1989 (Annexure 13) by which the Director, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur has directed the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis to forward the cases of Class IV employees who have been promoted on the basis of their passing Prathama Examination for their regularisation. Respondents No. 1 and 3 have not filed their reply. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 3 have not filed their reply. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has admittedly passed Prathama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in the year 1977, this examination was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan till June, 1985 and Virendra Kumar, Class IV employee of this Krishi Upaj Mandi has been promoted as L.D.C. who similarly passed the Prathama examination and as such the petitioner is also entitled to get similar promotion. He further contends that the petitioner is working on the post of 'Neelam-karta' since 1979 and additional allowance is being paid for this purpose. He relies upon Virendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1775 (1) and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 RLR 762 (DB). 5. In reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that item No. 4 of the Appendix 'A' of the Rules deals with appointment and promotion to the post of Junior Clerk, according to it a class IV employee possessing secondary/high school qualification from recognised Board and having three years' experience as Class IV employee can be promoted on the post of Junior clerk. He further contends that the Rules do not contain provisions similar to Rajasthan Subordinate Court (Ministerial Staff) Service Rules, 1986 and Rajasthan Subordinate Offices (Ministerial Staff Service) Rules providing that candidates passing an examination conducted by a Board recognised as equivalent to Secondary or high school examination of Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education may also be considered and in the absence of such a provision the petitioner who has admittedly not passed high school/secondary examination from recognised Board cannot be promoted. He further contends that Virendra Kumar was not promoted by the respondent Samiti but was promoted by the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur and no direction can be issued in this regard against the express provisions of law. He relies upon Sardara Ram v. District Judge, Jodhpur, 1991 WLR 290. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Fatehnagar in the year 1975 and he has not passed high school/secondary examination from any recognised Board. Item No. 4 of Schedule 'A' of the Rules runs as under:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Fatehnagar in the year 1975 and he has not passed high school/secondary examination from any recognised Board. Item No. 4 of Schedule 'A' of the Rules runs as under:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Junior Clerk (LDC) 10% by promotion & 90% by direct recruitment Secondary/High school from a recognised Board with typing speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi and 35 words per minute in English Class IV servants Secondary/High School from recognised Board and 3 years experience of posts mentioned in S.No. 7. Its column No. 5 clearly provides that a Class IV employee claiming promotion on the post of Junior Clerk/L.D.C. must have passed the secondary/high school examination from a recognised Board. Admittedly, the petitioner has not passed secondary/high school from a recognised Board. There is no provision in these rules similar to the provisions contained in Rajasthan Subordinate Officers (Ministerial Staff Service) Rules, 1957 and Rajasthan Subordinate Court (Ministerial Staff Service) Rules, 1986 providing that class IV employees having passed Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag may be promoted on the post of L.D.C. As such no direction against the Rule can be issued to the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Fatehpur (respondent No. 2) for promoting the petitioner to the post of lower division clerk. 7. Much reliance has been placed on the order dated January 9, 1989 (Annexure 13). It would be best to quote it here. It runs as under:-By this order, the director Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur has required the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis to forward the cases of all such Class IV employees who have been promoted on the basis of their passing Hindi Examination from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag or similar other examinations for the regularisation of their promotions to the posts of lower division clerk. It is clear from the letter dated July 25, 1979 (Annexure 9) of the respondent No. 2, that the petitioner had passed the Prathama Examination in the year 1978.Order dated April 5, 1978 (Annexure R/2) of the Secretary, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur shows that similar Class IV employees of the respondent No. 2, Virendra Kumar Pagaria, was promoted to the post of lower division clerk. If the cases of other Class IV employees passing Prathama examination have been considered for the regularisation of their promotion to the post of lower division clear and have been regularised, it amounted to hostile discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner is also working on the post of "Neelam Karta", a Class III post, since October, 1979 vide Annexures 7 and 8. It has been observed in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 at page 373 para No. 6, as follows:- "Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the seniormost workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the seniormost workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts." fo"k; % fgUnh ijh{kkvks dks lsds.Mjh lds le{kd iznku djus ckcrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd jktLFkku d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr deZPkkjh lsok fu;e 1975 ds ifjf'k"V , esa prqZFk JS.kh deZpkjh dks d-fy- in ij inksUr gssrq 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lsds.Mjh fu/kkZfjr gSA jkT; ljdkj us fgUnh ijh{kkvksa dks ekU;rk lekIr dj bu ijh{kkvksa dks 28&6&85 rd gh ekU;rk nh gSA vr% vki vius [k.M dh e.Mh lfefr;ksa ds izdj.k ftUgas fd dfu"V fyfid ds in ij inksUufr nh tk pqdh gS fu;fefrdj.k gsrq funs'kky; dks fHktok;s rkfd mUgsa jkT; ljdkj dks Hkstk tk ldsa vfr- funsZ'kd d`f"k foi.ku &&&&&&&&&&&& dk;kZy; lgk;d funs'kd d`f"k foi.ku foHkkx] mn;iqj dzekad 333@34 fnukad 9&1&89 izfrfyfi %& lfpo d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr Qrguxj dks Hkstdj fuosnu gS fd funs'kky; ds mDr i=kuwlkj ,sls deZpkjh;ksa ds izdj.k ftUgsa d-fy- ds in ij inksUufr nh tk pqfd gS ds fu;efrdj.k gsrq bl dk;kZy; esas fHktok;k tk ldsA 1& deZpkjh;ksa ds uke] 2& prqFkZ Js.kh ls fdl fnukad dks inksUufr ml le; D;k ;ksX;rk Fkh] 3& fu;fer osru fdl fnukad dks fn;k] 4& izFkek ,oa e/;ek dh ;ksX;rk dc izkIr dh] 5& ofj"Brk lwfp dze ij uke] 6& ;ksX;rk ds izek.k i= dh QksVksLVsV izfrfyfiA gLrk{kj lgk;d funs'kd d`f"k foi.ku foHkkx] mn;iqjA 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed against the respondent No. 3 only. The respondent No. 3 is directed to promote the petitioner to the post of lower division clerk within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order if the cases of promotion of other similar class IV employees of the various Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis have been considered and their promotions to the post of lower division clerk have been regularised. No order as to costs. *******