JUDGMENT 1. - The order dated 12.5.1983 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (shortly referred to as Tribunal) has been challenged by the two petitioners by which their promotion to the post of Teacher Gr. H from Teacher Gr. III, which was granted almost 20 years back (when the order was passed by the Tribunal and by now more than 32 years) has been ordered to be reverted to Grade III on the ground that they did not possess the required qualification of graduation decree at the time of their promotion. This order had been passed by the Tribunal behind the back of the petitioners as they had not been made parties in the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. This peculiar situation arose on account of the fact that one Shri Satyendra Singh Charan, who has been impleaded as a respondent in this writ petition, has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, claiming promotion on the post of Teacher. Gr. II. on the ground that he possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Teachgr.,Gr. II and, by way of citing instances, he had mentioned the names of the. petitioners Jagdish Chandra Joshi and Shri Nasir Mohammad stating therein that they had been promoted to the post of Teacher Gr. II and although this claim stood on similar footing, he has been denied such benefit. He, however, had claimed no relief against the petitioners Jagdish Chandra Joshi and Shri Nasir Mohammad. On the contrary, he had claimed that he should be granted similar benefit as granted to Nasir Mohammad and Shri Joshi.2A. The Tribunal while examining the case. of the impleaded respondent Satyendra Singh Charan was pleased to hold that he was not entitled for promotion to the post of Teacher,Gr..II and, in the process, was further pleased to hold that Jagdish Chandra Charan and Nasir Mohammad also were not entitled for promotion to the post of Teacher Gr. II which had been granted to them 20 years back as they were not graduate on 1.7.1962 which was a condition for promotion to Teacher Gr. II. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the authorities to issue a show cause notice to them and after granting them an opportunity of hearing, pass an order of their reversion. II which had been granted to them 20 years back as they were not graduate on 1.7.1962 which was a condition for promotion to Teacher Gr. II. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the authorities to issue a show cause notice to them and after granting them an opportunity of hearing, pass an order of their reversion. In pursuance of this order of the Tribunal, show cause notices dated 6.2.1985 were issued to the petitioners herein as to why they should not be reverted from the post of Teacher or. II to Gr. III. These two writ petitions are, therefore, directed against the show cause notice dated 6.2.1985 and also the order of the Tribunal dated 12.5.1983. 3. While assailing the aforesaid two orders, the petitioners have related the whole history under which they had been granted promotion. It has been stated by the petitioner Jagdish Chandra Joshi that he passed out the Bachelor of Arts Examination in the year 1962, in the supplementary Examination, of which the result was declared in September, 1.962. He had initially been appointed as Teacher Gr. III in the Government Middle School, Gopal Ganj, at Bhilwara in 1962 and joined his duties in the said capacity on 22.9.1962. Subsequently, he was confirmed on the post with effect from 1.7.1965. In the meantime, he had been promoted as Teacher Gr. II on 8.10.64 (vide Annx. 3 of the writ petition) for a period of 12 months, which was extended from time to time by orders dated 30.6.1965, 16.11.1966 and 21.10.1967. He had been thereafter fixed in the various revised pay scales prescribed for Teacher Gr. II under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Amended Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1966, with effect from 1.4.1966, and thereafter in view of Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) rules, 1969 with effect from 1.9.1968, further revised with effect from 1.9.1976 in view of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1975 and still further his pay scale was revised on 1.9.1981 by virtue of the Revised Pay Scales Rules of 1983. 4. Similarly, Nasir Mohammad, the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 343/1985, was also promoted as Teacher Or. II by order dated 27.8.1965 and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Bijolia. In course of his service, he further acquired higher qualification as he passed Master of Arts in Political Science and also passed B.Ed. in the year 1968. 4. Similarly, Nasir Mohammad, the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 343/1985, was also promoted as Teacher Or. II by order dated 27.8.1965 and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Bijolia. In course of his service, he further acquired higher qualification as he passed Master of Arts in Political Science and also passed B.Ed. in the year 1968. 5. The further history of their case discloses that by a Notification dated 1.2.12.1978, the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 was amended, wherein it was laid down that untrained teachers who were appointed between 1.9.1961 to 1.9.1976 were to be treated for the purpose of regularisation and they were also allowed grade increments after completion of 10 years. The benefit of this Notification was given to both the petitioners and consequently, they were regularised on the post of Teacher Gr. II, on which they had been appointed on 8.10.94 and 27.8.1965, which had been extended from time to time as stated hereinabove. Apart from that, the petitioner and a number of other teachers also who graduated after 1.7.62 were given promotion as Teacher Gr. II in view of the notification dated 12.12.1978. 6. It further transpires that prior to 1971, there were no statutory rules regulating the service conditions of Teacher Or. III and Gr. II and the general rules contained in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment & Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 were applicable. However, in the year 1971, the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 were framed, and proviso 3 to Rule 6 contained a provision for screening of the candidates. This Rule under Sub-Rule (3) inter alia laid down that the persons who have continuously held the post in ad hoc/officiating/temporary basis in the service for a period not less than six months on January 1, 1969, shall be screened by a committee to be referred to in Rule 25 for adjudging the suitability to the post held on January 1, 1969 provided they possess the qualification prescribed under the Rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the post on the basis of which they were appointed on ad hoc or officiating or temporary capacity. It has, therefore, been stated that since the petitioner has already acquired the qualification of B.A. in September, 1962, and was also promoted to Teacher Gr. It has, therefore, been stated that since the petitioner has already acquired the qualification of B.A. in September, 1962, and was also promoted to Teacher Gr. 11 on 8.10.1964, and got successive extensions on this post and was entitled for regularisation by virtue of notification dated 12.12.1978, hence in view of Sub-rule (3) to Rule 6 of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971, they were fully entitled to continue on the post of Teacher Gr. II, on which they had been promoted on 8.10.1964 & 17.8.1965. They were therefore, rightly not disturbed by the authorities until they were directed by the Tribunal to revert them, for which notices have been issued to them. For the sake of convenience, it may be recollected that the impleaded respondent herein Shri Satyendra Singh Charan is also a Teacher, who had been appointed on Gr. III in the District of Bhilwara on 3.7.1963. As stated hereinbefore, he had filed an appeal before the Tribunal claiming promotion on the post of Teacher Gr. II and cited example of the petitioners Shri Joshi and Nasir Mohammad that they were similarly situated and while they have been promoted, the impleaded respondent Shri Satyendra Singh Charan has not been granted the said relief. The support of his case, he also had relied on a Circular dated 12.9.1964 issued by the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Jaipur, which stipulated that persons who were in service on 1.7.1962 and had graduated by that time should be promoted as Gr. II Teacher. In course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Standing Counsel for the State submitted that Shri Jagdish Chand Joshi and Nasir did not fulfil the condition as required under the Circular dated 12.9.1964 and they were promoted wrongly. It was further submitted that since the two persons were wrongly promoted, therefore, the appellant therein, Shri Satyendra Singh Charan should also not be granted the benefit of promotion. The Sanding Counsel did not stop at that, and sought a direction that the Department should be permitted to demote or revert Shri Jagdish Chandra Joshi and Nasir Mohammad who had wrongly been promoted as Teacher Gr. II. The Sanding Counsel did not stop at that, and sought a direction that the Department should be permitted to demote or revert Shri Jagdish Chandra Joshi and Nasir Mohammad who had wrongly been promoted as Teacher Gr. II. The said Jagdish Chandra Joshi and Nasir Mohammad admittedly were not parties in the appeal before the Tribunal, but although they were not arrayed as parties, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed that since the promoted Teacher i.e. Shri Joshi and Nasir Mohammad were wrongly promoted to the post' of Teacher Gr. II, it became the duty of the respondent Department to revert them as per the law and rules otherwise it would result in discrimination to the appellant therein who is an added respondent herein. 7. In the process, however, the learned Member of the Tribunal admittedly did not issue any notice to the petitioner before recording this serious damaging remarks which resulted into grave prejudice to the petitioner Jagdish Chandra Joshi as also Nasir Mohammad. 8. Assailing the order of the Tribunal as also the show cause notice for reverting the petitioners from the post of Teacher Gr. II to Gr. III, it has first of all been submitted that the promotions which had been granted to the petitioners almost 20 years back and, by now more than 32 years, could not have been set aside by the Tribunal without making them parties to the appeal and that too without issuing any show cause notice. Besides, it has further been submitted that there is a clear estoppel against the State Government to issue any notice for reverting the petitioners after 20 years of their promotion merely on the ground that they were not graduate on 1.7.1962, which also is incorrect. 9. The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the Circular dated 12.9.1964, the petitioners were wrongly promoted and at the outset sought to justify the show cause notice for reverting the petitioner. But on persistent queries even he failed to justify the impugned action of the respondent. 10. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners have an unimpeachable case in their favour, not only on the ground of the submissions which have been advanced is support of their cases, but also from the case history which has been given out hereinabove. 10. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners have an unimpeachable case in their favour, not only on the ground of the submissions which have been advanced is support of their cases, but also from the case history which has been given out hereinabove. From the facts related hereinabove, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal was not equipped with full facts in regard to the promotion of the petitioner, because, the Tribunal, in my opinion is wholly in error in relying only upon the Circular dated 12.9.1964, while holding that the petitioners were wrongly promoted and in the process, seems to have been wholly missed, that much water has flown after issuance of the Circular dated 12.9.1964, as is evident from the, history of the case related hereinabove. It is quite clear from the Notification dated 12.12.1978 as also Rule 6(3) of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinates Service Rules, 1971, that a person who was holding the post even on ad hoc/officiating or temporary basis in the service for a period of less than six months on January 1, 1968 was to be screened, by a committee for adjudging the suitability to' 'the post held on January 1, 1969, provided they possessed the qualification prescribed in the Rules, either for direct recruitment or for promotion, or the prescribed qualification of the post on the basis of which they were appointed on ad hoc or officiating or temporary capacity. Therefore, even if it be assumed that the petitioner did not fulfil the qualification in terms of the Circular of 1969, he could not have been disqualified at least in the year 1971 as by that time he had admittedly served much more than six months on January 1, 1969, on the post of Teacher Gr. II and was also possessing the requisite qualification of graduate degree, in terms of the Notification dated 12.9.1964. Thus, apart from the fact that the petitioner's promotion could not have -been touched even on merit, the' direction for their reversion is wholly beyond the jurisdiction even on the elementary yet.ground that their promotions were directed to be set aside although they had neither been impleaded as a party before the Tribunal nor were given any notice while recording serious observations against them in pursuance of which the show cause notice of their reversion have been issued. 11. 11. Thus, the facts which speak for itself, as also other reasons assigned hereinabove, these two writ petitions are fit to be allowed with costs which is justified in my opinion, since it was the duty of the respondents to disclose full facts before the Tribunal regarding enactment of the Rules of 1971 and the notification dated 12.12.1978 and should not have relied upon the Circular simplicitor dated 12.4.1969, which was merely a letter of the Deputy Director of Education and it obviously get superseded by the Rules of 1971. These facts were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal as a result of which the petitioners have unnecessarily been dragged into this Court due to the compelling circumstances. As a matter of prudence, it is the respondent Department who, in fact, could have challenged the order of the. Tribunal, or could have filed a review before the Tribunal but, instead issued show cause notice to the petitioners ignoring the relevant Rules in regard to promotion of teachers. 12. In view of the discussions and the reasons assigned hereinabove, these two writ petitions are allowed with costs.Writ Petitions are allowed. *******