JUDGMENT 1. - Three petitioners, namely Girish Chandra, Nand Kishor Yadav and Mangi Lal, have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.03.2001(Annexure-10) passed by the respondents, whereby they were reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class-IV employee. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that vide impugned order dated 23.03.2001, 23 persons including present three petitioners, were reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class-IV employee, in pursuance of the Circular dated 03.07.2000, issued by the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Jaipur, which was issued in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in the case of Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7328/92). He submitted that two similarly situated persons, namely Ghanshyam Saini and Bhagu Singh, whose names appear at Serial No.15 and 20 respectively, in the order dated 23.03.2001, which is impugned in this writ petition also, preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1631/2001-Ghan Shyam Saini & Bhagu Singh v. State & Anr., which was allowed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2008 and thereafter the Department accepted the judgment of the Single Bench, by taking a decision of not filing appeal before the Division Bench and order of the Single Bench passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra), has already been complied with by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that since impugned order dated 23.03.2001 has already been set aside qua writ petitioners by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, which has been accepted and complied with by the respondents, the present writ petition of petitioners may also be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners further submitted that this Court vide order dated 28.03.2001, was pleased to pass an interim stay order, staying the operation of the impugned order dated 23.03.2001 reverting the petitioners from the post of LDC to the post of Class-IV employee, therefore, petitioners are continuously working since 1992 till date on the post of LDC. He also submitted that petitioner No.3 Mangi Lal has already retired from the post of LDC and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 Girish Chandra and Nand Kishor Yadav respectively, who are also working on the post of LDC till date, as per interim order passed by this Court, are to be retired shortly. He also submitted that order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra), is based on the judgment of Division Bench of Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi(Special Appeal No.828/2002), decided on 25.11.2002, operative portion of which has been reproduced in the order passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra), and order of Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi(supra), has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also and the Special Leave Petition, filed by the State against that order, has been dismissed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that Division Bench passed an order in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi(supra) , after passing of the order in the case of Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(supra) , which is the basis of issuance of Circular dated 03.07.2000, therefore, the Circular dated 03.07.2000, was not found to be applicable by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra). He, therefore, submitted that present writ petition be allowed in the light of judgment in Ghan Shyam Saini's case(supra). 5. Learned counsel for respondents has not disputed that against the impugned order dated 23.03.2001, two similarly situated persons, namely Ghanshyam Saini and Bhagu Singh, whose names appear at Serial Nos.15 and 20 respectively in the impugned order dated 23.03.2001, preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1631/2001 and the said writ petition has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the judgment of the Single Bench has been accepted by the Department, by taking a decision for not preferring special appeal before the Division Bench and to comply the order of Single Bench. He has also not disputed that order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. He has also not disputed that order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra), has been complied with by the respondents in respect of similarly situated person, namely Ghanshyam Saini, and his order of reversion dated 23.03.2001 has also been cancelled by the Department, which is impugned in this writ petition also. He, therefore, does not dispute that present case is fully covered by the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra). He, therefore, submitted that present case may be decided in the light of the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra). 6. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that reversion order of petitioners was passed on the basis of Circular dated 03.07.2000, which was issued on the basis of decision of this Court in the case of Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(supra), however, he has not disputed that writ petition of similarly situated persons, namely Ghanshyam Saini and Bhagu Singh, has already been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the impugned order has been quashed qua those writ petitioners and order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been complied with by the respondents in respect of similarly situated person, namely Ghanshyam Saini and his order of reversion dated 23.03.2001 has been cancelled vide order dated 01.10.2012 passed by Commissioner, Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He also referred this order during arguments of the case. A photocopy of the order dated 01.10.2012 has been placed/ taken on record. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. Three petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.03.2001, whereby they were reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class-IV employee. From the submissions of parties, it appears that petitioners qualified their 'Prathma' examination before 28.06.1985 and at the relevant time, the said qualification was recognized. Subsequently, same was withdrawn. The petitioners were promoted before the judgment of this Court in Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(supra) and the Circular dated 03.07.2000. From the submissions of parties, it appears that petitioners qualified their 'Prathma' examination before 28.06.1985 and at the relevant time, the said qualification was recognized. Subsequently, same was withdrawn. The petitioners were promoted before the judgment of this Court in Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan(supra) and the Circular dated 03.07.2000. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi(supra), decided on 25.11.2002, affirmed the order of Single Bench, setting aside the order of reversion. Order of Division Bench was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, while dismissing Special Leave Petition, preferred on behalf of the State. Order of Division Bench has been reproduced by the Co-ordinate Single Bench in the order of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra). ORDER of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 24.03.2008, allowing the writ petition of similarly situated persons, namely Ghanshyam Saini and Bhagu Singh, is reproduced as under:- "Instant petition has been filed assailing order dated 23/03/01 whereby petitioners were reverted from the post of Lower Division Clerk to the cadre of Class IV on the premise that their promotion on the post of LDC is not legally sustainable now in the light of judgment of this Court. Both the petitioners were appointed as Class IV employees on 13/03/1976 & 01/12/1978 and while holding qualification of Hindi Sahitia Samelan, Allahabad and Rashtra Bhasha Parichaya Examination, they were promoted as LDC vide order dated 01/07/95 (Ann.1) on the basis of seniority and against quota reserved for Class IV cadre. After they were promoted, the controversy was decided by Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma v. RSEB 1999 (2) SLR 383 (Raj). in the light whereof, all such persons being promoted as LDC for their qualification of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Samelan or other equivalent certificate course, were reverted back to the cadre of Class IV vide order dated 23/03/01 (Ann.3). Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy was examined by this Court (DB) in State of Rajasthan v. Manilal Joshi (Special Appeal No.828/02 decided on 25/11/02 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(2) aslr 383 (RAJ) 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." 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. It has been informed that against judgment of Division Bench pronounced at principal seat Jodhpur, SLP No.6999/03 was also preferred by State Government that too has been dismissed on 22/08/2003. In such circumstances, in view of latter decision of this Court, the controversy raised herein does not remain res integra. Petitioners were also promoted as LDC much prior to judgment of Full Bench of this Court and they are fully covered by judgment of Division Bench quoted (supra) and accordingly their subsequent reversal vide order impugned dated 23/03/01 (Ann.3) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Petitioners were also promoted as LDC much prior to judgment of Full Bench of this Court and they are fully covered by judgment of Division Bench quoted (supra) and accordingly their subsequent reversal vide order impugned dated 23/03/01 (Ann.3) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Orders dated 23/03/01 (Ann.3) with regard to reversion from the post of LDC to the cadre of Class IV qua petitioners is hereby quashed & set aside and they are entitled for consequential benefits flowing thereof. No order as to costs." 9. Learned counsel for respondents has not disputed that the above order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 24.03.2008, has been accepted by the Department and it has been complied with also and similarly situated person, namely Ghanshyam Saini has been granted relief as per direction of this Court dated 24.03.2008 and his reversion order dated 23.03.2001, which is impugned in this writ petition also, has already been cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 01.10.2012. 10. In these circumstances, I am of the view that from the admitted position between the parties, it is clear that present case is fully covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2008 passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Anr. v. State & Anr.(supra). 11. That apart, it is relevant to mention that this Court vide interim order dated 28.03.2001, had stayed the operation of impugned order dated 23.03.2001, relating to reversion of petitioners and in pursuance thereof, petitioners are still working on the post of LDC. Petitioners Girish Chand and Nand Kishore were promoted on the post of LDC vide orders dated 25.07.1992 and 22.01.1992 respectively. Petitioner No.3 Mangilal was initialy promoted on the post of LDC on 28.07.1992. Subsequently vide order dated 07.01.1993(Annexure-3), he was promoted as LDC w.e.f. 27.04.1991. The petitioners are therefore, working as LDC for last more than two decades. They have already acquired sufficient experience of the post . There is no complaint against them that they are inefficient or not capable to do the work on the post of LDC. Petitioners were promoted in 1992 in pursuance of direction of this Court, which is clear from their promotion orders (Annexure-1 to 3). They have already acquired sufficient experience of the post . There is no complaint against them that they are inefficient or not capable to do the work on the post of LDC. Petitioners were promoted in 1992 in pursuance of direction of this Court, which is clear from their promotion orders (Annexure-1 to 3). It is also relevant to mention that petitioner No.3 Mangi Lal has already retired from the post of LDC and petitioner No.1 Girish Chandra and petitioner No.2 Nand Kishor Yadav, who are working on the post of LDC till date, as per interim order passed by this Court, are to be retired shortly. 12. Since the impugned order dated 23.03.2001 has already been set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court qua writ petitioners in the case of Ghan Shyam Saini & Bhagu Singh, whose names appear at Serial Nos.15 and 20 respectively in the impugned order, and out of which, reversion order of one Ghan Shyam Saini has already been cancelled by the Department, by accepting the order of Single Bench, I do not find any justification to take a different view than the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.03.2008. 13. In view of above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 23.03.2001, qua petitioners, is set aside and they are held entitled for the consequential benefits flowing thereof. 14. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******