KISHAN PURI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Lower Division Clerk in the Police Department on Dec. 8, 1950. He was confirmed on the aforesaid post with effect from Sept. 1, 1956. Thereafter, he was promoted as an officiating Upper Division by the order dated Aug. 8, 1958. By the order of the petitioner of the Deputy Development Commissioner dated Nov. 6, 1958, the petitioner was appointed as a Gram Sewak in the Development Department. It does not appear from the writ petition as to how the petitioner came to be appointed in the Development Department fern the Police Department, whore he was working earlier, but it appears that at some time his services were transferred from the Police Department, where he was working earlier, but it appears that at some time his service were transferred from the Police Department to the Development Department, as an officiating Upper Division Clerk. After the publication of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Rules') a seniority list of village level workers was issued by Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Vikas Department by the notification dated Sept. 18, 1969 in which the petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 1334. The grievance of the petitioner is that his earlier service as Lower Division Clerk was not considered while fixing his seniority in the category of Gram Sewak.

(2.) Rule 24 of the Rules provides that the seniority in one grade or category of service shall be determined by the date of the order of substantive appointment to a post in that grade or category. This rule is applicable only to the person who came to be appointed to the aforesaid service after the coming into force of the Rules on Oct. 1, 1959. However, the first proviso to Rule 24 provides that the seniority inter se of the members of service appointed to the posts in a particular grade or category of the Service, before the commencement of Rules, shall be such as has been or may be fixed by the Department on ad hoc basis. Rule 5 provides for the initial constitution of the service and it has been mentioned therein that all persons holding appointments on posts in different categories or grades, included in the service, immediately preceding the constitution of the service, shall be deemed to have been appointed thereto under the provisions of the Rules. Permanent Government employees who did not desire to become members of the service could Opt out by indicating their intention not to join the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to work on the post of village a level worker (Gram Sewak) even after the coming into force of the rules and he did not exercise the opinion of not becoming a member of the service. Rule 4 specifies the various categories which have been included in the aforesaid service. Category 1 includes village level workers while category No. 12 includes L.D.Cs and U.D.Cs. Thus a perusal of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that while Lower and Upper Division Clerks from one category in the service, the seniority was to be fixed by the State Government of the employees who were already working on the posts included in the service, prior to October 1, 1959 in accordance with the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 24, separately in respect of each category of posts included in the service. The State Government has fixed the seniority of the village level workers employed prior to Oct. 1, 1959 in accordance with the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, on the basis of the date they were appointed in a Development Block or the date they reported for training in a training centre. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the aforesaid criteria employed by the State Government in fixing the seniority of the village level workers employed prior to Oct. 1, 1959 was in any manner illegal or irrelevant. The contention of the petitioner's learned counsel is only that the petitioner's earlier service, rendered by him on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Police Department, should also have beery taken into consideration and he should have been assigned seniority in the seniority list dated August 8, 1969 with respect to the date of his initial appointment as a Lower Division Clerk. As has already been mentioned above, Lower Division Clerks came under a separate category of posts included in the service, while village level workers formed an entirely different category. The petitioner has been assigned seniority on the basis of the date of his appointment as a village level, corker i.e. Nov. 6, 1958. The earlier service recorded by the petitioner as a Lower Division Clerk in the Police Department was not, and in my view rightly, considered for the purposes of assigning seniority to the petitioner in the category of village level workers. As the criteria adopted for the assignment of seniority in the category of village level worker the date of reporting appointment as a village level worker or the date of reporting for training centre, how could the service rendered by the petitioner earlier on the post of Lower Division Clerk be considered for assigning him higher seniority ? The contention of the petitioner in this respect, therefore, cannot be accepted.

(3.) Another point which was taken in the writ petition related to the validity of the first proviso to Rule 24. But learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of the hearing, abandoned the aforesaid ground and did not urge the same. Learned counsel submitted that in Govind Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1973 WLN 342 , the validity of a somewhat similar proviso in respect of the determination of seniority has been upheld by this Court and in view of the aforesaid decision lie did not think it proper to urge the argument regarding the alleged invalidity of the proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules.