Honble VERMA, J.–Both the Writ petition involve identical points and, therefore, are being decided together. (2). The petitioners in both the writ petitions were initially recruited as Class IV employee. They had acquired higher qualification i.e. examination of Secondary Education/Matriculation after joining the service. As per Regulation 6 of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulation, 1963, a provision had been made for reservation of promotion of Class IV employees to the post of LDC. Out of 15% reservation, 7.5% posts of LDC were to be filled up from amongst those who were possessing the secondary qualification before entering the service as Class IV employee and remaining 7.5% were to be filled in from those who have passed Matric/secondary examination after entering into the Boards service. (3). In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/94, the petitioner Sikhar Chand Agrawal is aggrieved of the fact that one of his junior Class IV employee Suresh Chand Gupta was promoted to the post of LDC on 14.4.1980 who was similarly situated as he had already cleared the secondary examination after joining the service. The petitioner is said to have passed Secondary School Examination in 1978 and Suresh Chand Gupta in 1979. The petitioner aggrieved against such order of supersession made representations. The representations had been attached with the writ petitions. The petitioner was ultimately promoted vide letter dated 7.8.1980, however, before the promotion of the petitioner of 7.8.1980, the Regulation 6 which shall be reproduced here-in-after was amended on 4.8.1980. The petitioner joined as LDC on 18.12.1980 when he received the latter Annexure- 1 dated 2.3.1994 by which order his date of promotion has been changed from 7.8.1980 to 24.10.1992. The petitioner once again represented against the reversion for the period in the year 1980 to 24.10.1992 causing not only financial loss but also the loss in status. (4). The impugned order dated 2.3.1994 in both the above-said writ petition is common with the only difference that in the writ petition of Sikhar Chand, the promotion date had been changed, but in the present case Kailash Chand Sharma has been reverted as peon. No recovery of any amount was to be made while reverting or changing the date of promotion. (5). No recovery of any amount was to be made while reverting or changing the date of promotion. (5). In the written statement filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per Regulation 6, 15% posts of LDC had been reserved from the promotion quota and out of such 15%, 7.5% were to be filed up on the basis of seniority who had acquired the required educational qualification before entering into service and remaining 7.5% out of candidate on seniority who had acquired the qualification after joining the service. This regulation was amended on 4.8.1980 and all the 15% posts were to be filled up from amongst Class IV employees strictly on the basis of seniority who were possessing the required qualification. It is the case of the respondents that the order of promotion made on 7.8.1980 was against the amended regulations. The amended regulation some how had not reached the concerned officers till the time reversion was made and, therefore, six persons who had acquired the qualifications after joining the service were promoted on 7.8.1980. It is stated that certain employees including one Bodulal had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7538/92 and because of the direction given by the High Court, the seniority list was redrawn by the answering respondent and, therefore, the petitioner Kailash Chand Sharma was placed on down below in the seniority list i.e. the department after the decision of the writ petition of Bodulal and after bifurcation from amongst the Class IV employees who had passed secondary school examination prior to joining and after joining had to reconsider the matter so as to give promotion to class IV employee to the extent of 15% who-so-ever possess the required qualification as per seniority and that had necessitated the reversion as well by reallocating the date of promotion as per the decision of the Court. (6). The case of Babulal as mentioned in the written statement i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 383/82 was the case of Class IV employee whose grievance was that some persons who were junior to him had been promoted as LDC on 1.3.1978 and Babulal was ignored. (6). The case of Babulal as mentioned in the written statement i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 383/82 was the case of Class IV employee whose grievance was that some persons who were junior to him had been promoted as LDC on 1.3.1978 and Babulal was ignored. On the grievance so made it was held by the Single Bench that the promo- tion order made on 7.8.1980 in regard to Babulal were of the period prior to amendment of Regulation dated 4.8.1980 and on 4.8.1980 said Babulal was senior and for the reason that his case was not considered; it was held that said Babulal was entitled for consideration for promotion on 7.8.1980 under the rules applicable prior to 4.8.1980. The direction was given to promote said Babulal retrospectively. This was so confirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 60/1991 so far the promotion was concerned. Yet in another writ petition filed by Bodulal being Writ Petition No. 7538/92 Single Bench of this court had allowed the writ petition of said Bodulal Jat on the same analogy as in the case of Babulal with the direction that all the six persons who were similarly situated in the case of Babulal Gupta will be considered for promotion. (7). The case of Bodulal Jat was also with the grievance that certain promotions had been made on 7.8.1980 ignoring the rights of the senior persons. So far the writ petition of Sikhar Chand petitioner is concerned, it is fully covered by the judgment of Babulal Gupta and also Bodu Lal Jat. it has been held in the case of Babulal Gupta that prior to 4.8.1980 earlier rule was applicable and in case any junior persons was promoted under the rules by ignoring the senior persons, the senior is also to be promoted and such direction was given. (8). The contention of the respondent in this regard to the effect that the petitioner had not informed the department of his having passed the Secondary Examination has no merit and is to be rejected for the reasons that as soon as Suresh Chand Goyal was promoted, the petitioner had made representation in May 1980 itself stating therein all the facts. (9). (9). Writ petition of Sikhar Chand is allowed on the ground that one Suresh Chand Goyal who was admittedly junior to the petitioner was promoted in April 1980 by ignoring the rights of the petitioner. The impugned order is queshed. Kailash Chand Sharma vs. RSEB (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1608 of 1994) (10). In the writ petition No. 1608/94 Kailash Chand Sharma, the petitioner was working as Class IV employee was promoted on 7.8.1980 as LDC when after about 14 years of his working as LDC vide letter dated 2.3.1994, he was ordered to be reverted to the post of Class IV employee. (11). For the reasons that the petitioner was senior to Babulal Gupta whose writ petition No. 383/83 was allowed and the petitioner had become senior to such Babulal Gupta as a clerk, it is the submission of the petitioner that his seniority cannot be disturbed and the order dated 7.8.1980 is to be maintained. (12). It is stated by the petitioner that after about 14 years of his promotion as LDC, he acquired the knowledge of the impugned order dated 2.3.1994 (Annex. 4) stating therein that the petitioner who was promoted on 7.8.1980 is reverted back to Class IV employee, however, no recovery on account of this reversion under clause (3) and (4) was to be effective and their pay shall be refixed. The petitioner Kailash Chand was reverted because of the decision of the writ petition No. 383/92 and D.B. Special Appeal No. 601/91. The petitioner was one of the employees out of six who were promoted vide Annex.2 in the year 1980-9\81; namely Gopal Singh Negi, Hot Ram, Raghuveer Singh, Sikhar Chand Agrawal, Ishwar Singh and Kailash Chand Sharma were promoted on the same day. In this special appeal NO. 601/91, in the case of Babulal, it was the case of the State that if Babulal is given promotion as per judgment of the learned Single Judge but he cannot be given seniority over six persons who were not made parties in the writ petition No. 383/92. The petitioner was one of those six persons, meaning thereby if said Babulal stands promoted to the post of LDC, the petitioner being senior could not have been reverted. It is not denied that said Babulal while claiming promotion in Civil Writ petition Petition No. 383/92 had not impleaded the petitioner as party. (13). The petitioner was one of those six persons, meaning thereby if said Babulal stands promoted to the post of LDC, the petitioner being senior could not have been reverted. It is not denied that said Babulal while claiming promotion in Civil Writ petition Petition No. 383/92 had not impleaded the petitioner as party. (13). There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the rule 6 stood amended and artificial classification of the qualification of promotion from amongst Class-IV employee having acquired the qualification and eligibility before joining the service and after joining the service had been deleted and 15% pro- motions were to be made as per seniority, even though technically the order may be right, but reverting the petitioner after 14 years of service when his seniority as LDC has been kept intact and undisturbed by a judgment of the Division Bench in Babulals case, in my opinion, the direction given in Babulals case ought not have effected the petitioner. Even in view of the plea taken by the respondent RSEB while defending Babulals case, where the respondent had specifically sought protection of the seniority of six persons including of the petitioner, the petitioner ought not have been reverted. (14). The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order so far as it relates to reversion of the petitioner from Class III employee to Class IV employee in setaside. (15). Both the writ petition are allowed.