JUDGMENT 1. - Aforesaid two special appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in separate writ petitions filed by the appellants. The writ petition filed by appellant Baldev Singh was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.9.2007 and the writ petition filed by appellant Phool Chand Saini was also thereafter disposed of on that basis subsequently on 10.12.2007. Both the appellants approached this Court by filing writ petitions against the order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the District Education Officer (Secondary-1) Sikar, by which appellants were reverted on the premise that as per judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma and 13 others v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1999(1) WLC (Raj.) I : [1999(2) SLR 383 (Raj.)] , those having qualification of 'Prathama' were not eligible for promotion. Since appellants, who were substantively Class-IV employees were promoted to the post of L.D.C. on the basis of such qualification which had been de- recognised vide circular of the Education Department dated 5.9.1987, they were reverted. 2. Shri C.L. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that promotion of appellant-Baldev Singh was made vide order dated 2.5.1994 and appellant Phool Chand Saini was promoted vide order dated 5.2.1996 as per interpretation of law then prevalent that those having acquired qualification of 'Prathama' prior to amendment of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short, the "Rules of 1957") vide notification dated 28.6.1985 would be eligible. The appellants, therefore, could not be reverted on account of the subsequent interpretation rendered by the Court. It was argued that one Bhagirath was also reverted by the same order dated 6.12.2000 along with the appellants. He also was having same qualification of 'Prathma'. Writ Petition filed by him was allowed by the Single Judge of this Court and the special appeal filed thereagainst by the State of Rajasthan, being D.B.S.A.W. No. 755/2001, State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath , was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2003. He also was having same qualification of 'Prathma'. Writ Petition filed by him was allowed by the Single Judge of this Court and the special appeal filed thereagainst by the State of Rajasthan, being D.B.S.A.W. No. 755/2001, State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath , was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2003. Learned counsel also referred to similar judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, in State of Rajasthan v. Mani Lal Joshi, D.B.S.A.W. No. 828/2002 decided on 25.11.02 and submitted that Special Leave to Petition filed by the State against the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi being SLP (C) No. 6999/03 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 22.8.2003. In the present case, however, the learned Single Judge failed to consider all these aspects. It is, therefore, prayed that judgments passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the writ petitions be allowed by quashing the reversion orders. 3. Shri S.S. Sharma, learned Government Counsel contested the. appeals and argued that special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan i.e. D.B.S.A.W. No. 755/2001 (State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath) was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court only on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided to Bhagirath prior to reverting him. Larger Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma supra has taken the view that after amendment of Rule 12(2) supra, the qualification of 'Prathama' would no longer be valid for promotion and, therefore, appellants were rightly reverted. 4. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival submissions and perused the cited judgments and the record. 5. Appellants in the present case were promoted from the post of Class-IV to Class-III on the strength of qualification of 'Prathama' acquired by them from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad Hind Vishvidhayalaya, Allahabad in the year,1984 and at the relevant point of time, such qualification, was recognised equivalent to Secondary which was requisite qualification for appointment on the post of L.D.C. under the Rules of 1957. Such recognition though remained valid but the Government vide notification dated 28.6.1985 amended Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1957 in the following terms "In the existing sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the said rules, after the existing expression "for the purpose of this rule" tie punctuation mark Coma (,) shall be substituted by the punctuation mark Full-stop (.) and the existing expression 'or must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent to the matriculation' shall be deleted and shall always be deemed to have been deleted with effect from April 1, 1985." 6. Aforequoted circular gave rise to a spate of litigation involving the question as to whether this amendment would have retrospective effect or it would apply only prospectively, which led to divergent views expressed by two division benches of this Court. When reference of this question was made to the larger bench, Full Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma supra held that qualification acquired prior to 28.6.1985 shall make the candidates eligible for appointment/promotion against the vacancies which had occurred upto the date of amendment and not thereafter. When similarly situated candidate Mani Lal Joshi was reverted, he approached this Court by filing writ petition which was allowed. State of Rajasthan filed special appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.11.2002. Division Bench held that till decision was rendered by the Full Bench, earlier view of this Court expressed through Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Nath v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1995(1) 74 held good and that was to the effect that the candidates who have acquired the qualification of 'Prathama' prior to 28.6.1985, would be eligible for appointment/promotion even for vacancies of subsequent years. Relevant observations of the Division Bench are for the facility of reference quoted hereunder "It is aforesaid circumstances when the petitioner challenged his reversion order learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that in view of the law declared by this Court which was holding the field when the petitioner was promoted. Subsequent reversal of that view on different petition in different matters ought not to affect the transaction which have been completed on the belief about the correctness of law as was declared by this Court interpreting the relevant rules and by which State too was bound to act in consonance thereof. Subsequent reversal of that view on different petition in different matters ought not to affect the transaction which have been completed on the belief about the correctness of law as was declared by this Court interpreting the relevant rules and by which State too was bound to act in consonance thereof. In these circumstances it will not be just and fair to revert petitioner after a so long period. Interest of justice demands that as a result of declaration of effect of amendment in Rules vide notification dated 28.6.85 be applied prospectively to future promotions, else it will result in serious injustice to petitioner who has otherwise rightly promoted as per declaration of law by this Court having binding force when promotion was made and the petitioner could not be held responsible for that in any manner." 7. State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath supra was a case in which Bhagirath was a co-employee of the appellants who was also reverted by the same order which is impugned in the present' sent proceedings and his reversion order was also quashed and set- aside by the learned Single Judge of this court. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 31.1.2003, observing as under:- "It is not disputed that the reversion was ordered after ten years without giving an opportunity to the respondent to have his say in the matter. The appellants are not right in passing the order of reversion, in as much as nothing was concealed by the respondent and the qualification which he had obtained from the Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was known to the appellants. The appellants having given promotion to the respondent ten years back, could not have passed the order of reversion, though the derecognition of the qualification was made in the year 1985. The appeal is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed." 8. The order of reversion impugned in these cases too was passed without any opportunity of hearing being provided to the appellants, which is also liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice. Respondents themselves were uncertain about recognition of 'Prathma' because if the words 'equivalent qualification' were deleted w.e.f. 28.6.1985 why did they then promote the appellants in 1994 and 1996. Respondents themselves were uncertain about recognition of 'Prathma' because if the words 'equivalent qualification' were deleted w.e.f. 28.6.1985 why did they then promote the appellants in 1994 and 1996. The respondents promoted the appellants for the obvious reasons that they had acquired the qualification of 'Prathma' prior to amendment in Rule 12(2) supra and this was the view they then held. And all this was fully known to the respondents and nothing was concealed by the appellants. 9. In view of the position of law noticed above, the appellants who were promoted on the basis of qualification of 'Prathama' as per the interpretation of law which held the field at the relevant time, could not be reverted. Interpretation of law pronounced by the Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma supra has to, therefore, have prospective application qua the case in which rights got crystalized in favour of the employees by grant of promotion. We are inclined to agree with the view expressed in earlier division bench judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Mani Lai Joshi supra and also hold in the present that it would be harsh and unjust to the.appellants, who have by now completed almost one and a half decade from the date of promotion if they are now reverted again to the post of Class-IV. they 10. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeals and consequently, the writ petitions of the appellants deserve to be allowed in terms of earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath and State of Rajasthan v. Mani Lal Joshi supra.In the result, both the special appeals are allowed and resultantly, judgments of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, dated 24.9.2007 and 10.12.2007 are set aside. Order of reversion dated 6.12.2000 is quashed and set aside and writ petitioners are accordingly held entitled to continue on the post of promotion with consequential benefits. Appeals allowed. *******