STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Service Tribunal') dated 9th July, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4006/01 and dated 16th May, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4007/01. By these two orders, the Tribunal decided two separate appeals preferred by the respondents as the question of law involved in these cases are identical therefore they are being decided together by a common judgment.

(2.) THE case of respondent No. 1 Madan Singh in writ petition No. 2006/01 is that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and on that basis Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi called him for interview on 2nd July, 1982 and thereafter appointed him vide order dated 13th July, 1982 on the post of Teacher Gr. III for a period of six months or till the availability of the selected candidates from Service Selection Commission in the pay scale of 355-10-415-15-550-20-570. Upon being further selected by Zila Parishad, Sirohi, he was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 23. 11. 1984. THEreafter on completion of period of probation of two years he was confirmed w. e. f. 23. 11. 1986 by order dated 9th May, 1988. It has been submitted that although, for grant of selection scale on completion of 9 years, the date of his initial appointment i. e. 16th July, 1982 has been taken as the basis to calculate such period of 9 years. But when the respondent published the eligibility list vide order dated 1. 4. 1987 for the purpose of promotion from Teacher Gr. III to Teacher Gr. II, the name of the respondent was shown at serial No. 22. His initial appointment was made on 16th July, 1982 but many of the persons who were appointed after him were shown senior to him in the said list. THE respondent therefore prayed for grant of seniority from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 16th July, 1982 and requested that the government be directed to treat 16th July, 1982 as the date of his regular appointment for all purposes.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appointments of the respondents made respective on 16. 7. 1982 and 1. 10. 1982 by orders dated 13. 7. 1982 , 22. 9. 1982 passed by the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti were against clear cut vacant post and were in regular scale of pay. They were appointed only when their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. The respondents have also granted them benefit of selection scale of completion of 9 years service from the date of their initial appointments. It was therefore prayed that their initial appointments may be treated regular appointment for all practical purposes and there was no justification whatsoever not to grant them seniority on the basis of such initial appointments. The Service Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Dr. Chandra Prakash & Ors. vs. State of U. P. & Anr. , reported in (2002) 10 SCC p. 710, (2) State of Punjab vs. Rupinder Kawal Sahib & Ors. , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 179, (3) Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2004) 3 SCC p. 723 and (4) D. R. Yadav & Anr. vs. R. K. Singh & Anr. , reported in (2003) 7 SCC p. 110. He also relied upon the judgments of two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Avinash Kant vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. , reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) p. 101 = RLW 2001 (2) Raj. 1027 and Jeewan Das vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , reported in RLR 1990 (1) p. 718.