A.K. GARG Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner's case is governed by the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the Absorption Rules') or it falls under Rules 11(2)(b) of the said Rules.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this controversy are that in the year 1958, the Government of Rajasthan decided to conduct a rapid economic and industrial survey of the State with a view to formulate its proposals for the Third Five Year Plan for Rajasthan. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan by his letter dated August 2, 1958, requested the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for its permission or concurrence to the making of initial appointments of the requisite staff on temporary basis for the Director of Economic and Industrial Surveys. By their letter dated August 9, 1958 the Commission accorded its concurrence to the appointment of temporary staff for conducting a rapid economic and industrial survey of Rajasthan, as requested by the State Government Thereafter, the Director of Economic and Industrial Surveys, Rajasthan issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts in the aforesaid Directorate including 23 posts of Computers . All the applicants, including the petitioner, were interviewed by a Selection Board and after such selection, the petitioner was appointed a Computer on a purely temporary basis for a period of six months or till a candidate recommended by the Commission was appointed whichever was earlier, by the order of the Director of Economic and Industrial Surveys, Rajasthan, dated January 12, 1959. The petitioner held the post of Computer in the aforesaid Directorate for sometime and by the order of the Director dated August 13, 1959, he was promoted to the post of Investigator -Grade II. The petitioner was eventually declared surplus from the Directorate of Economic and Industrial Surveys and by the order of the Assort on Committee dated August 31. 1962, he was directed to be absorbed as a Computer in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Absorption Committee, the Director of Economics & Statistics, Rajasthan by his order dated September 11, 1962, absorbed the petitioner as a Computer in that Directorate, on a temporary basis The respondents Nos. 3 to 8 as well as the petitioner were considered for absorption under Rule 11(2)(b) of the Absorption Rules by a Screening Committee and while the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were found fit and were deemed to be regularly appointed persons under Sub -rule (6) of Rule 11 of the Absorption Rules by the order of the Director of Economics and Statistics dated November 15, 1971, but the petitioner could cot be so appointed under Rule 11(6) of the Absorption Rules as he was not adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee under Rule 11(2)(b) if the Absorption Rules The respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were thereafter confirmed on the posts of Computers in the Directorate of Economics and Statistic by the order dated January 19, 1972 with effect from March 1, 1969 under Rule 16(3) of the Absorption Rules. However, the petitioner could not be confirmed as he was not deemed to be regularly appointed on the post of Computer. Sometime later, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Substantive Appointment and Determination of Seniority of Temporary Employees) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Rules') came into force and the petitioner was then confirmed on the post of Computer with effect from September 14, 1972, the date on which the 1972 Rules came into force. However, the petitioner could not be assigned higher seniority than the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 on the post of Computer, as he was confirmed with effect from a later date than the aforesaid respondents and the seniority in the cadre of Computers was to be determined according to the date of their substantive appointment on the said post. The petitioner felt aggrieved as he was assigned a lower position in the seniority list than !he respondents Nos. 3 to 7 and filed the present writ petition in this court.

(3.) CLAUSES (2)(5) and (6) of Rule 11 of the Absorption Rules, which are relevant for the present case, read as under: