STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GORDHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 26th March, 1979, passed by the Rajas than Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 26/1979.

(2.) THE appeal aforesaid was filed by Gordhan Prasad, respondent No. 1, against the orders dated 12th October, 1978 and 20th December, 1978, passed by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue. By order dated 12th October, 1978, respondent No. I, Gordhan Prasad was reverted from the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant to the post of Patwari, and by order dated 2Cth December, 1978, 82 persons, including Shri Shiv Prasad Dadich, petitioner No. 4, were confirmed on the posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on the basis of screening under Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Accounts Subordinate Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Tribunal held that under proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules, only a person who has been appointed to the post included in the Schedule - -I on ad hoc/offitiating/temporary basis on or before 1st January, 1973, and was working continuously till the date the Rules came into force, Rule 28 of the Rules for adjudging the suitability on the post held by him The Tribunal held that respondent no. 1 had no right to be appointed to the service under Proviso (c) to Rule 6, because he had not been appointed on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant on or before 1st January, 1973.The Tribunal further held that all the persons except one Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who were shown to have been appointed under the order dated 20th December, 1978, were appointed on the posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountants after the crucial date, i.e., 1st January, 1973, and that they were also not eligible for appointment to the service on the basis of screening under Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules. The Tribunal, however, held that since Shri Shiv Prasad Dadhich alone was included as a party in the claim filed before it, the Tribunal could not pass any order against the other persons. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the appointment of Shri Shiv Prasad Dadhich to the service was invalid and quashed the same and as regards the other persons who were appointed under the order dated 20th December, 1978, the Tribunal directed that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 should review the appointments strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and to consider suitable amendments in the Rules so as to cover the other reasonable cases also in the purview of Proviso (c) to Rule 6 of the Rules.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ajeet Bhandari, the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Jagdeep Dhankad, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.