JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application for early hearing. The same stands allowed. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy raised herein has been examined and decided by this Court in CWP-1718/2001 (Ram Swrup Lakhera v. State) vide judgment dated 08.04.2008. 3. The petitioner initially joined service in the cadre of Class-IV and acquired qualification of Prathama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad in September,1984, which at one point of time was considered to be equivalent to Secondary School Examination, however, amendment was made in sub-rule (2) of R.12 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules,1957, vide notification dated 28.06.1985. The petitioner was promoted as LDC vide order dated 04.04.1998 on the basis of seniority and controversy was finally settled by Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma v. RSEB [1999 (1) WLC-1] - in the light whereof, all such persons like petitioner being promoted prior to the judgment of the Larger Bench were reverted to the post of Class-IV vide order dated 25.07.2000. 4. The reversion of such employees which took place after the judgment of the Larger Bench in Shanker Lal v. RSEB , the controversy came to be examined by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi (Special Appeal No.828/02) decided on 25.11.2002 at Principal Seat Jodhpur) observing ad infra : "On 12/04/93, the decision of this Court which was holding field as on that date favoured his promotion, in fact until decision rendered in Jagdish Nath v. State of Raj. (RLW 1995(1) page 74 ), a Division Bench of this Court has held that persons acquiring qualification prior to 18/06/85 will continue to be eligible for promotion even for subsequent years also. The same view has been reiterated in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.137/96, State of Raj. v. Kastoor Singh and others . The Special appeal against the decision was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Full Bench in Shankerlal v. RSEB ( 1999 (1) WLC 1 ) held that qualification acquired upto 28/06/85 shall make the candidates eligible for vacancies which have occurred upto that date but not thereafter as per the qualification certificate itself was changed." "It is in aforesaid circumstances when the petitioner challenged his reversion order, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that 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 petitions in different matters ought not to affect the transactions 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 so long period." 5. In view of what has been observed (supra), it is settled that if an incumbent was promoted on the basis of existing provisions and the law declared by this Court at relevant point of time, which was holding the field, subsequent reversal of that view on different petitions, will not affect transactions which have been completed on the belief about correctness of law as was declared by this Court interpreting relevant Rules. 6. In view of later decision of this Court, the controversy raised herein does not remain res integra. 7. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in the light of the judgment, referred to supra. The order dated 25.07.2000 with regard to reversion from the post of LDC to the cadre of Class-IV qua petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside and he is entitled for consequential benefits flowing thereof. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******