SAHADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the vires of proviso (3) added to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-I) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1955) which are framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution in so far as it provides for fixing the seniority of the petitioner after the direct recruits of the year 1988. The aforesaid proviso (3) added to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 is reproduced below for ready reference :

(2.) The brief facts necessary for effective adjudication of the present writ petition which emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector (Executive) by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 18-5-62 (Annex. 1) on temporary basis for a period of 6 months. In compliance of the aforesaid order he joined his duties on 28-5-1962. However, the services of the petitioner were continued after the expiry of the period of 6 months till further orders by the Registrar vide order dated 18-12-62 (Annex. 2). The petitioner thereafter continued to serve the Co-operative Department in the same capacity.

(3.) It is revealed from perusal of the record that vide order dated 22-7-92 (Annex. 3) the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis after screening under proviso (3) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955. The aforesaid order dated 22-7-92 (Annex. 3) provides that the persons appointed by the said order shall be junior to the persons appointed after being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer in the year 1988 by way of direct recruitment. Thereafter a provisional seniority list of the Inspectors of the Co-operative Department was published where the name of the petitioner was not shown. However, the said seniority list was cancelled by another seniority list dated 23-4-92 (Annex. 4). It is pertinent to mention here that in the earlier seniority list published on 1- 10-76 the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 679 which is not placed on record.