Hon'ble BHANDARI, J. - (1.) A bunch of ten writ petitions was decided by a common judgment dated 19.7.1999. Out of the aforesaid bunch, two appeals have been filed to challenge the judgment.
(2.) THE facts relevant to these cases are summarized in brief. THE appellants herein were initially engaged on temporary basis. In the case of appellants-Rajendra Kumar Sharma and others, engagement of appellant is prior to coming into force the Rajasthan Circuit House Subordinate Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). In other appeal of appellant-Nand Lal Soni, he was engaged after coming into force of the Rules of 1979. Rules of 1979 provide two modes of recruitment i.e., by way of direct recruitment and promotion. Rules further provide that those engaged on ad hoc, officiating or temporary basis before 1.6.1977 and are working on such post, higher post or equivalent post on the date of commencement of the Rules of 1979, shall be screened by a Committee referred under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1979. Both the appellants herein were appointed after 1.6.1977, thus they were not screened to make them permanent. THE employees, who were engaged on or before 1.6.1977 were then screened and regularized in service with consequential benefits of seniority by counting their entire length of service. The appellants and few other employees initiated litigation when advertisement for direct recruitment was issued. The respondents made amendment in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 pursuant to the directions of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1096/1986 & 9 other matters so decided on 5.11.1986. The amendment in the Rules was made on 14.4.1987. The employees were called upon to give their options for regularization by way of screening. All the appellants were then screened and regularized in the services. On 25.2.1988 a provisional seniority list was issued for the post of House Keeper and Senior House Keeper. In the aforesaid seniority list, direct recruitees of the year 1986 were ranked senior to those who were screened and regularized in service pursuant to the amendment in the Rules. The dispute as involved in these cases arose then, regarding determination of seniority. The appellants herein not only challenge the seniority, but constitutional validity of the amended Rule was also questioned. The aforesaid challenge could not sustain as the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the brief notes narrated above, three grounds have been urged before us to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as action of the respondents, which are as under :- (i) Whether Rules can be amended in a discriminatory manner to deny the benefit of entire length of service for determination of seniority to those, who were screened pursuant to the amendment in the Rules on 14.4.1987 and, at the same time, giving benefit of entire length of service for the purpose of seniority to those who were appointed prior to 1.6.1979 and were screened and regularized in service earlier to the appellants? (ii) Whether an employee engaged in service can be denied benefit of previous service prior to regularization for determination of seniority? (iii) Whether a cut off date of 1.6.1977 could have been provided in the Rules of 1979 for considering those who were engaged prior to aforesaid date for regularization leaving others? Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that when the Rules of 1979 were brought into force, it was provided that those who were engaged on ad hoc, temporary or officiating basis on or before 1.6.1977 would be screened and regularized. Rules were providing the benefit of seniority by counting length of service prior to screening and regularization. While the amendment was brought on 14.4.1987 pursuant to the earlier judgment of the High Court, the candidates engaged subsequent to 1.6.1977 were called for screening, however, they were denied benefit of seniority by counting their services prior to regularization. According to the appellants, amended Rule is discriminatory to that extent. This is apart from the fact that while Rules of 1979 were brought, there was no nexus to provide cut off date of 1.6.1977 for the purpose of regularization. Cut off date so provided is not legally sustainable. It was lastly urged that in any circumstances, amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 is not sustainable as an employee engaged in service cannot be denied benefit of service prior to regularization for the purpose of determination of seniority and thereby ignoring the past service. Seniority was determined counting the service from the date of regularization. By virtue of aforesaid, direct recruitees of the year 1986 were ranked senior to those who were screened and regularized in service subsequently. The prayer is, thus, to declare Proviso 4 to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1979 as illegal being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India so as the seniority list. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned counsel, Mr. V.B. Srivastava, appearing for other respondents supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and urged that initial engagement of the appellants was not in accordance with the Rules as were then applicable. In view of the aforesaid, they are not entitled to claim benefit as made herein in view of catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Those who were engaged on or before 1.6.1977 were screened and given benefit of seniority by counting their entire length of service because Rules, though came into force in the year 1979, but process for making Rules started in the year 1977, thus cut off date of 1.6.1977 was provided under the Rules of 1979. The aforesaid Rules remained unchallenged throughout as what has been challenged in writ petitions is subsequent amendment in the Rules of 1979. Thus, argument made to challenge the cut off date is not otherwise a subject matter of the writ petitions.
(3.) THE amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 is not otherwise violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It is now a settled law that a person, who was not appointed in service in accordance with the Rules at the initial stage, if regularized in service subsequently, he would not be entitled for the benefit of past service for determination of seniority. In view of aforesaid law, challenge to the seniority as well as Rules is not sustainable. In this case, an advertisement for direct recruitment was made prior to regularization of the appellants in service, accordingly, petitioners were having a chance to appear and compete in direct recruitment. THE appellants herein chose not to compete with others and now they want to march over those who were directly recruited in the year 1986. THE learned Single Judge has not disturbed their appointment while passing the impugned judgment. In view of aforesaid, all the three grounds urged before this Court are not sustainable and accordingly, these appeals may be dismissed. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. The appellants have raised three grounds to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as action of the respondents. The first issue raised is in regard to the validity of Proviso 4 to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1979 as was amended vide notification dated 14.4.1987. For ready reference aforesaid provision is quoted hereunder:- JUDGEMENT_1687_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_1687_RAJLW2_2011Image2.jpg ;