ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent-Department vide office order dated 05.11.1997 (Annexure P-1) and she was posted in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Shimla. The petitioner was promoted as Clerk vide office order dated 27.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) and she performed her duties as such till the year 2007. However, in the same year she suffered neurological disorder and had requested the department to revert her back to the post of Peon. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent-Department and vide office order dated 8th June, 2007 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Peon. The petitioner worked as Peon in the respondent-Department till the year 2008 and since now she was fit for duties, she submitted a medical fitness certificate (Annexure P-4) to the respondent-Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Clerk vide office order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P5), but in the promotion order, the respondents have put conditions that she has to pass 10+2 examination till 2011 and also has to qualify typing test within six months with minimum speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi/English, failing which, her promotion will be withdrawn. 2. Consequently, the petitioner passed her typing test as per the condition laid down in the promotion order, within the prescribed period and also started pursuing her studies of 10+2, however, she could not pass her 10+2 examination, as stipulated by the respondent-Department and made a representation (Annexure P6) to respondent No. 2 requesting therein that she is going to appear in 10+2 examination, which has been scheduled to be held w.e.f. 07.04.2012, as such, three months further time be given to her for passing the 10+2 examination. The petitioner appeared in 10+2 examination in the month of April, 2012 and her result was awaited, however, in the meantime, the request made by the petitioner qua extension of time was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-7). Consequently, vide order dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P8), the petitioner was reverted back from the post of Clerk to the post of Peon. 3. Feeling aggrieved by reversion order, dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner preferred the instant petition. 4. Ms. Consequently, vide order dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P8), the petitioner was reverted back from the post of Clerk to the post of Peon. 3. Feeling aggrieved by reversion order, dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner preferred the instant petition. 4. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that action of the respondents by reverting the petitioner back is wrong and arbitrary, as the petitioner had requested the Department well in time for extension of three months time to pass 10+2 examination, however, the respondents have not granted time to the petitioner and reverted her back to the post of Peon. She has further argued that the reason given by the respondents in rejection order while referring to the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in COPC No. 329/2011, is not applicable in the instant case, because the petitioner is not claiming relaxation, but the petitioner has requested that she may be given time till her result of 10+2 is not declared. She has further argued that the petitioner has always performed her duties with utmost sincerity and devotion and there is no complaint whatsoever with regard to her work and conduct and she cannot be reverted to the post of Peon merely on the technical ground that she has not passed the 10+2 examination as stipulated by the respondents. Lastly, she has argued that reversion order dated 11.07.2012 (Annxure P8) be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to perform her duties as Clerk on the same place and same capacity by taking on record her 10+2 certificate (Annexure P-10). 5. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon and thereafter she was promoted as Clerk in the year 2005, but she on her own requested that she be reverted back to the post of Peon. He has further argued that the petitioner was again promoted as Clerk in the year 2009, but, at that time the qualification was 10+2 and as the petitioner could not qualify 10+2 examination within the stipulated time she was reverted back. However, as per the interim order of this Hon’ble Court, she is continuing as Clerk and performing her duties as such. 6. However, as per the interim order of this Hon’ble Court, she is continuing as Clerk and performing her duties as such. 6. The petitioner was promoted as Clerk on 27.06.2005 vide Annexure P-2, but, as she suffered neurological disorder, on her request, she was reverted back to the post of Peon. It is the dedication of the petitioner that when she was unable to perform the duties of Clerk, she had requested for her reversion. Had she not requested her reversion, she would have been continued as Clerk and by now she might have been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II or even to Superintendent Grade-1. The respondents have not considered this aspect while reverting her back and had they considered so, the respondents should have granted her one time relaxation in educational qualification, as she was not promoted to the post of Clerk for the first time. 7. So, the present is a fit case where writ is required to be issued to the respondents, by directing them to allow the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Clerk from the year 2009, when she was promoted as Clerk for the second time and when she was not having neurological problem, for which reason she asked for her reversion in the year 2007, after her earlier promotion in the year 2005. Further, the petitioner has performed her duties as Clerk satisfactorily and no complaint was ever found against her from year 2005 to 2007 and from the year 2009 till date and present is a fit case where even her experience creates a right in her favour due to legitimate expectations that when she was rightfully promoted in the year 2005 and she was reverted back in the year 2007 on her request due to neurological problem, she was having legitimate expectations that she will be promoted after few years when her medical conditions will improve. But reverting her back with the condition that she is required to pass 10+2 examination as per the Rules, which have come into force after 2009, the legally approved right of the petitioner by way of legitimate expectations has been infringed. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner to the post of Clerk with all consequential benefits from the year 2009, when she was promoted for the second time. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner to the post of Clerk with all consequential benefits from the year 2009, when she was promoted for the second time. 8. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.