JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.3.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in SB CWP No. 1637/90. 2. The facts giving rise to the controversy are that the respondent was employed by the appellants in Class IV service. His appointment was made on 26.7.1972. While in service, he passed Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitiya Sammelan, Prayag in the year 1983. This qualification was recognised by the Government as equivalent to matriculation. It is not in dispute that a Class-IV employees who was possessed of qualification of matriculation was entitled to be promoted as Lower Division Clerk against ten percent quota reserved for Class-1V employees under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules" only). Subsequently, the quota was raised from ten percent to twelve and half percent. It appears that despite the fact that the respondent had acquired the requisite qualification for being promoted as LDC, he was denied promotion. 3. On 28.6.1985, degree of Prathma from Hindi Sahitiya Sammelan, Prayag was derecognized by the Government. The respondent being aggrieved of the fact that he was not granted promotion to the post of LDC filed a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and a direction was issued to the State to determine the vacancies to year-wise under Rule 9 of the Rules from the year 1983, if they had not already been determined and then accord promotion to the respondent herein on the basis of his eligibility, acquisition of qualification and seniority, Peeping in view the Rules. The appellants were also directed to fix the pay and seniority of the respondent notionally on the basis of the order of his promotion. 4. Not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants filed the instant special appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. R.K. Soni, submitted that the qualification which the respondent was possessed of was derecognized by the Government notification dated 28.6.1985 and therefore, the respondent was not entitled for promotion to the post of LDC. The argument is fallacious and suffers from an apparent misconception. 7. In the pleadings of the appellant, it is stated that there were no vacancies in post of LDC till 1.4.1985, which means there were vacancies after 1.4.1985. The argument is fallacious and suffers from an apparent misconception. 7. In the pleadings of the appellant, it is stated that there were no vacancies in post of LDC till 1.4.1985, which means there were vacancies after 1.4.1985. This being so, the respondents having acquired the qualification in the year 1983, he was entitled to be promoted as LDC as by that time the notification, derecognizing the degree of Prathma from Hindi Sahitiya Sammelan, Prayag had not been issued. Therefore, at least between 2.4.1985, when the vacancies were available and 28.6.1985, when the notification was issued, there was no impediment in appointing the respondent on the post of LDC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the notification, derecognizing the qualification was issued on 28.6.1985, the qualification acquired by the respondent from Hindi Sahitiya Sarnmelan, Prayag according to the notification, was deemed to have been derecognized w.e.f. 1.4.1985. It is well settled that a notification cannot be given retrospective effect, affecting the substantive rights of the employees.In the circumstances, therefore, the learned Single Judge was entirely right in allowing the writ petition and issuing direction to the State. 9. We are told by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants have already granted promotion to the respondent subject to the result of the appeal. 10. In the circumstances, therefore, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******