BANNEY SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 21. 11. 1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders Annex. 9 and Annex. 10 dated 10. 10. 1988 qua the respondents No. 3 to 7 by which the respondent No. 2 the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur re-determined the seniority amongst the petitioners and the respondents No. 3 to 7 and placed the respondents No. 3 to 7 above the petitioners, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioners were duly recruited and selected for the posts of Excise Inspectors Gr. II vide order Annex. 1 dated 24. 10. 1973 against the substantive posts. THE case of the petitioners is that the respondents No. 3 to 7 were appointed on the posts of Excise Inspectors Gr. II in the year 1970 vide orders dated 22. 9. 1970 (Annex. R/6) and 2. 11. 1970 without complying with the procedure prescribed for recruitment under the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1960") and their appointments were made temporary under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1960. THE further case of the petitioners is that since the respondents No. 3 to 7 were not appointed regularly, therefore, after coming into force of the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1974"), the cases of the respondents No. 3 to 7 were considered by the Screening Committee and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Screening Committee under proviso (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1974, the respondents No. 3 to 7 were appointed regularly as Excise Inspectors Gr. II vide order dated 23. 11. 1974 (Annex. 2 ). According to the petitioners, a tentative seniority list of the Excise Inspectors Gr. II was issued on 30. 11. 1974 and in that seniority list, the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. Another tentative seniority list was issued on 1. 6. 1977 in which also, the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. However, objections were always invited against the seniority lists issued from time to time. Again, a tentative seniority list dated 15. 9. 1979 of Excise Inspectors Gr. II was issued and in that seniority list also, the petitioners were also shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. THEreafter, a final seniority list Annex. 4 dated 21. 6. 1980 was issued and in that also, the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. THEreafter, another final seniority list dated 12. 4. 1985 (Annex. 5) was issued in which also the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. Even in the seniority list dated 28. 11. 1987 (Annex. 6), the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents No. 3 to 7. But, a tentative seniority list dated 18. 8. 1988 (Annex. 7) was again issued in which the petitioners names have been shown at serial Nos. 52 and 53 respectively whereas for the first time, the names of the respondents No. 3 to 7 have been shown at serial Nos. 37, 39 to 42 respectively. Aggrieved from the said seniority list Annex. 7 dated 18. 8. 1988, the petitioners made a representation Annex. 8 dated 25. 8. 1988 and after giving due consideration to the representation Annex. 8 of the petitioners, the impugned seniority lists Annex. 9 and Annex. 10 dated 10. 10. 1988 were issued in which the names of the respondents No. 3 to 7 have been shown at serial Nos. 38, 40 to 43 respectively while the petitioners' names were shown at serial Nos. 53 and 54 respectively and in these seniority lists, the respondents No. 3 to 7 were shown senior to the petitioners treating them to be confirmed with effect from the date of their initial temporary appointments. In this writ petition, the seniority lists Annex. 9 and Annex. 10 dated 10. 10. 1988 have been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds and the main ground is that the appointments of the respondents No. 3 to 7 in temporary capacity were made under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1960 and therefore, since their appointments were made on temporary basis, they had to clear the screening test by the Screening Committee under proviso (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1974 and after its clearance, the respondents No. 3 to 7 should have been treated as substantively appointed and prior to that, no seniority could be conferred on them. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and it has been submitted by them that the appointments of the respondents No. 3 to 7 were made in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 1960 and not under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1960, as alleged by the petitioners.

(3.) THUS, the question for consideration is whether the respondents No. 3 to 7 were appointed under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1960 as alleged by the respondents or under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1960, as alleged by the petitioners.