ORDER : 1. An application (1/2024) filed by and on behalf of petitioners to take certain additional and subsequent documents on record, is allowed. The additional documents, enclosed with the application, are taken on record. 2. Counsel for respondent-employee has raised a preliminary objection, in respect of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition, for which counsel for petitioner has replied that on pursuing contempt petition against non-compliance of the impugned order dated 29.04.2010, the impugned order came to the knowledge of the Department, hence the present writ petition was filed. In support, counsel for petitioners has placed on record copy of orders dated 29.01.2024 and 04.09.2024. Though, this Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioners to condone the delay, however, with the consent of counsel for both parties, the writ petition has also been heard on merits. 3. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioners on 05.09.2020, impugning the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.3069/2000, whereby and whereunder the order dated 05.09.2000, impugned in the appeal, and demotion of respondent- employee from the post of Munshi Gr. I to Beldar, were set aside, as also he was held entitled for pay scale and all the monetary benefits on the post of LDC, on which he was accommodated vide order dated 23.01.1996. 4. Having heard counsel for both parties and from perusal of record, it appears that in furtherance to an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur dated 15.12.1999, an order dated 05.09.2000 was passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kota, withdrawing the order dated 23.01.1996 and thereby further demoting the respondent-employee from the post of Munshi Gr. I to Beldar. 5. The order dated 05.09.2000 came to be challenged by the respondent-employee by way of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The challenge was made on the ground that respondent- employee, though initially was appointed as Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1980, but in-fact, his services were taken against the post of Munshi and later on, vide order dated 01.04.1982, he was given status of semi-permanent as work-charge Munshi. 6. The challenge was made on the ground that respondent- employee, though initially was appointed as Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1980, but in-fact, his services were taken against the post of Munshi and later on, vide order dated 01.04.1982, he was given status of semi-permanent as work-charge Munshi. It was alleged that subsequently various orders were passed in his favour, and ultimately he was regularized on the post of Munshi vide order dated 19.05.1994 and thereafter, he was accommodated against the vacant post of LDC vide order dated 23.01.1996. It was further alleged that pursuant to order dated 23.01.1996, respondent-employee was continuously discharging his services on the post of LDC, however, under the impugned order dated 05.09.2000, the order dated 23.01.1996 was withdrawn and consequently, all the benefits released to him, were supposed to be recovered and more over he was demoted to the post of Beldar. 7. The Tribunal, having considered the appeal of respondent- employee on merits, has observed that from the date of first appointment of respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1980, his services were taken on the post of Munshi and later on, his services on this post were regularized vide order dated 19.05.1994 as much he was adjusted against the vacant post of LDC vide order dated23.01.1996. 8. The Tribunal has further observed that the order dated 05.09.2000 has been passed by misconstruing the direction of the award dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur, since that award was passed treating the respondent- employee as Beldar, for regularization, whereas facts on record are otherwise. 9. The Tribunal has clearly observed in the order that once respondent-employee has been given status of Munshi, though he was initially appointed as Beldar and later on, he has been confirmed and his services were regularized on the post of Munshi as much as he has been accommodated against the vacant post of LDC, his demotion to the post of Beldar as a result of withdrawal of order dated 23.01.1996 that too after a huge delay, is arbitrary and perverse. 10. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 05.09.2000 and held respondent-employee entitled for pay scale and all the monetary benefits on the post of LDC, pursuant to the order dated 23.01.1996 11. 10. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 05.09.2000 and held respondent-employee entitled for pay scale and all the monetary benefits on the post of LDC, pursuant to the order dated 23.01.1996 11. Having gone through the findings of the Tribunal and in view of the fact that respondent-employee was possessing qualification of matriculation and as per Rules, he was qualified and eligible to be promoted/ posted as Munshi Gr. I as also after regularization as Munshi, he has been accommodated against the vacant post of LDC, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assigned justified and rational reasons for quashing the order dated 05.09.2000. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal, are well within the parameters of law and do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness, perversity and jurisdictional error. 12. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to examine the perversity in the order or jurisdictional error or the order has been passed in patent illegality or suffers from vice of arbitrariness, which leads to injustice. The jurisdiction is not akin to the Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [ 2001 (8) SCC 97 ], while explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated 29.04.2010 does not call for any interference on merits as well by the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. As a result, the instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches as also lacks merits, hence is hereby dismissed. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.