S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing and setting aside the Government order dated November 30, 1973 reverting the petitioner back from the post of Assistant Registrar to the post of Inspector, Co -operative Department; (b) that ah appropriate writ, direction or order be issued directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to prepare a common seniority list of Inspectors in the Co -operative Department in accordance with the date of their substantive appointment as Co -operative Inspector Grade II and to use the same for the purpose of promotion in the department; (c) that by an appropriate writ, direction or order the seniority list issued by the respondent No. 2 dated September 24, 1973 and dated; October 8, 1973 be quashed and set aside; ] (d) that any other appropriate writ, -direction or order may be granted to the petitioner for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facets and circumstances of the case; (e) Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner from the respondents. An advertisement was published on behalf of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of 8 Inspectors in the Co -operative Department. This was done somewhere in June or July, 1955. The applications were to be submitted by September 29,1955. In that very advertisement, applications were invited for the post of 12 Auditors in the Co -operative Department in the grade of 90 -5 -160 and also for the post of 15 Assistant Inspectors in the grade of 65 -4 -103 -EB 5 -135. The qualifications for the aforesaid posts were mentioned in the advertisement. The miscellaneous conditions regarding appointment are contained in para 7 of the advertisement. The relevent terms contained in that para are: (1) The selected candidates will have to join duty immediately after selection; (2) Candidates selected for the post No. 1 will have to undergo training for 5 to 12 months and No. 2 for 7 months and for No. 3 for six months, during which they will get a stipend of Rs. 50/ - p.m. for posts No. I and 2 Rs. 40/ - p.m. for post No. 3 and (3) appointment shall be subject to successful completion of the training and selected candidates will have to execute a bond to serve the department for atleast five years.
(2.) THE petitioner was selected by the Commission for the post of Inspector of the Cooprative Department. The Registrar, Cooperative Department, by his letter No. 2619/Estt/F. Recruitment CDR/56 dated February 14, 1956 in formed the petitioner that he has been selected and was required to report to the Principal, Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore for receiving the necessary training latest by February 21, 1956 at it has already commenced working. In that letter, it was, inter alia, mentioned that regular appointment as Inspector will depend on the successful completion of training After completion of training at the Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore the petitioner was appointed Inspector in the Cooperative Department in the grade of 110 -5 -135 EB -10 -225 as the grade had been revised and the salary was fixed at Rs. 110 -. plus usual dearness allowance. The appointment order was provisional pending announcement of the result of the training. Subsequently the petitioner was declared successful by the Regional Cooperative Training Centre, Indore. The posts of Inspector Grade IF were the posts created for the plan period and when these posts were made permanent w.e.f. July 1, 1959, the petitioner was also confirmed as Inspector Grade II w.e.f. July 1, 1959 under the orders of the Registrar dated June 3, 1965. The order dated June 3, 1965 confirming the petitioner w.e.f. July 1, 1959 has been filed by the petitioner marked as Annexure -2. By order No. F. 1 (6 -B) CDR/Estt/L/56 dated July 3 and 4, 1967, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued a provisional common seniority list of permanent Inspectors (Executive and Audit) of the Cooperative Department appointed upto December 31, 1958 The name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 108 in the seniority list (Annexure -3). The persons whose names are mentioned in para 20 of the writ petition are junior to the petitioner. Out of those 20 persons some of them have only been impleaded as non -petitioners in the writ petition, for, they have not been reverted under the impugned order dated November 30, 1973. Thereafter another provisional common seniority list of permanent Inspectors (Executive and Audit) of the Cooperative Department appointed upto December 31, 1958 was issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Department under his order dated October 22, 1970. The said seniority list has been file by the petitioner marked as Annxure -4, According to the petitioner, respondents No. 3 and 4 (whose name was ordered to be struck off vide court's order dated July 22, 1975) and respondents No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were selected as auditors by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on March 7/8, 1956 in the grade of 90 -5 -160. They were, however appointed as Inspectors Audit near about September 29, 1956. Subsequently under order dated July 4, 1967, these persons were retrospectively appointed as Inspectors (Audit) in the Cooperative Department w.e.f. March 8, 1956 when they were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Auditors. The petitioner has stated that respondents No. 3 to 8 and 10 to 13 are junior to him and it was on account of their having been appointed as Inspectors (Audit) w.e.f. March 8, 1956 while the petitioner was appointed with effect from February 20, 1956. So also he has stated that respondents No; 9 and 14 are also junior to him as they were appointed as Inspectors w.e.f. June 26, 1956 and July 4, 1956 respectively while, the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. February 20, 1956. Respondent No. 15 is said to be formely Inspector Grade III and wais promoted as Inspector Grade II under Government Order No F. 1(27) Cooperatives/57 dated May 5, 1958. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector Grade 1 under Order No. 80098 F. 3/Prom/CDR/Estt/8/57 (Anx. 5) dated November 21, 1960. Respondents No. 3 to 15 were promoted as Cooperative Inspectors Grade I subsequent' sometime in the year 1960 or even later. The petitioner goes on to say; that he along with 20 others including respondents No. 5 to 14 was appointed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on ad -hoc basis under; the orders of the Govt. No. F. 18(8) Cooperattve/1/67 dated April 18, 1968. Respondents No. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 were also promoted as Assistant Registrar on ad -hoc basis vide order No. F. 18(98) Cooperative/1/67 dated April 18/20, 1967. Other respondents were also promoted as Assistant Registrars on ad hoc basis from time to time. Respondent No. 10 was also promoted as officiating Assistant Registrar on ad hoc basis under Govt. Order No./18(15)/Cooperative/1/69 dated August 7, 1969. The Registrar (respondent No. 2) by his order No. F. CO1/Estt/B/II/73/6 dated April 4, 1973 purported to issue a seniority list of Inspectors Grade II Audit and Executive as on January 1, 1973 and in the order it was mentioned that errors Or omissions if any, may be brought to his notice within a period of one month from the date of issue of the order, meaning thereby that the seniority list was provisional in nature. In the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No -27. Subsequently, vide Order No. F. 1(6) CDR/Estt/B/II/73 dated. September 4, 1973, respondent No. 2 issued a final seniority list of Inspectors (Executive) Grade. II as on July 1, 1973. Vide Order No. 24(46)CDR/Estt/Audit 1962; dated October 8, 1973 respondent No. 2 issued another seniority list of Inspectors (Audit) Grade II as on September 20, 1973. In the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 32. According to the petitioner all the Inspectors Grade II in the Cooperative Department whether executive or audit form one common cadre and under the Rules in vogue there should have been one common seniority of all of them, and so the issuance of seniority list was not in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Service (Class I) Rules, 1955, (For short the Rules hereafter). No reply |o the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. However, in the reply to the stay application, it was contended that the petitioner had already been reverted from the post of Assistant Registrar, which he was holding on a purely ad hoc basis under orders of the Government dated November 30, 1973, that he has been posted in the capacity of Inspector as Executive Officer, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jodhpur on deputation vide orders dated December 7, 1973 and that at that time he was working as Executive Officer in the said Bank in the capacity of Inspector on deputation. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had been reverted from the ad hoc post of Assistant Registrar to the substantive post of Inspector on account of the fact that 13 directly recruited Assistant Registrars through Rajasthan Public Service Commission were available and that the petitioner could not claim any permanent status on the post held by him on an ad hoc basis during such time until regular candidates through Rajasthan Public Service Commission were available. According to respondents No. 1 and 2, respondents No. 3 to 14 were all Inspectors (Audit) working in the Cooperative Department and that they were recruited through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on March 8, 1956 but the petitioner as well as respondents No, 3 to 14 had to undergo training after their selection by the Commission. After completion of the training, the petitioner was appointed as Inspector (Executive) in the Cooperative Department on December 17, 1956. The training period of respondents No 3 to 14 was of lesser duration and as such they were appointed as Inspectors (Audit) in the Cooperative Department earlier than the petitioner. As regards respondent No. 15, it was stated that he was a substantive, hand duly selected by the special selection Board as Inspector in the Cooperative Department as back as in the year 1952. He was confirmed as Inspector Grade II w.e.f. July 1, 1959 and as Inspector Grade I w.e.f. March 1, 1960. He was promoted as Assistant Registrar on an ad hoc basis vide order dated July 14,1959 while the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Registrar after about nine years in April, 1968. In this way, the claim of the petitioner that he should he assigned seniority over respondent No. 15 was refuted as the latter was a confirmed Grade I Inspector on the date of reversion of the petitioner. It appears from the record that respondent No. 15 filed a representation contesting that the petitioner is not senior to him.
(3.) I have heared Mr. B. R. Arora; learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. N. Calla, learned Additional Government Advocate.;