RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bunch of ten writ petitions was decided by a common judgment dated 19.7.1999. Out of the aforesaid bunch, two appeals have been filed to challenge the judgment.

(2.) THE facts relevant to these cases are summarized in brief. THE appellants herein were initially engaged on temporary basis. In the case of appellants-Rajendra Kumar Sharma and others, engagement of appellant is prior to coming into force the Rajasthan Circuit House Subordinate Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). In other appeal of appellant-Nand Lal Soni, he was engaged after coming into force of the Rules of 1979. Rules of 1979 provide two modes of recruitment i.e., by way of direct recruitment and promotion. Rules further provide that those engaged on ad hoc, officiating or temporary basis before 1.6.1977 and are working on such post, higher post or equivalent post on the date of commencement of the Rules of 1979, shall be screened by a Committee referred under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1979. Both the appellants herein were appointed after 1.6.1977, thus they were not screened to make them permanent. THE employees, who were engaged on or before 1.6.1977 were then screened and regularized in service with consequential benefits of seniority by counting their entire length of service.

(3.) THE amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 is not otherwise violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It is now a settled law that a person, who was not appointed in service in accordance with the Rules at the initial stage, if regularized in service subsequently, he would not be entitled for the benefit of past service for determination of seniority. In view of aforesaid law, challenge to the seniority as well as Rules is not sustainable. In this case, an advertisement for direct recruitment was made prior to regularization of the appellants in service, accordingly, petitioners were having a chance to appear and compete in direct recruitment. THE appellants herein chose not to compete with others and now they want to march over those who were directly recruited in the year 1986. THE learned Single Judge has not disturbed their appointment while passing the impugned judgment. In view of aforesaid, all the three grounds urged before this Court are not sustainable and accordingly, these appeals may be dismissed.