RATHORE, J. - (1.) SINCE identical facts and question of law are involved in both the above appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts of D. B. Special Appeal No. 238/2000, Lokesh Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, are taken treating it as leading case.
(2.) THE petitioner-appellant was appointed as an L. D. C. under the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Rules of 1986') vide order dated 10. 11. 98 and was posted as Copiest in the office of the District Judge, Sikar on probation for a period of one year. During the Probation Period the petitioner appellant submitted an application for transfer in the name of the learned Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur through the District & Sessions Judge, Sikar on 5. 1. 1999. The respondent No. 3, the District & Sessions Judge, Sikar forwarded the application to the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. Upon considering the application, the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur issued an order dated 7. 1. 1999, by which, the appellant was transferred as L. D. C. in the Court of Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. In compliance of the order dated 7. 1. 99, the appellant joined on the post of L. D. C. in the office of Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur on 11. 1. 99. The controversy in this case arose only after the order dated 6. 7. 2000 was passed by the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur, by which, the services of the petitioner appellant was repatriated to his parent Department because of the reason that employees of Subordinate Civil Courts appointed under the Rules of 1986 cannot be transferred to the offices of the State of Rajasthan. The appellant knowing this fact that he cannot continue in the office of the Judge, Labour Court, No. 2, Jaipur being an office of the State of Rajasthan, submitted an application to the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 6. 10. 99 through proper channel and the same was forwarded by the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur to the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his letter dated 7. 10. 99. In response to the letter dated 7. 10. 99 the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City informed the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur vide his letter dated 19. 11. 99 that the application for transfer has been filed and it is not possible to take the appellant on transfer under Jaipur City Judgeship. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 6. 7. 2000, passed by the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court on the grounds that the order dated 6. 7. 2000 is against the principles of natural justice and discriminatory leading to denial of equal treatment to the appellant and also violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant. The appellant further challenged this order that in view of Rule 7 (1) of Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules. 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Rules of 1957') the post in any cadre can be filled in by transfer of a person employed in another department on equivalent post by consent of the Head of Department. The transfer of the appellant from the post of LDC working under the District & Sessions Judge, Sikar to an equivalent post of L. D. C. under respondent No. 2 - Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur is fully in accordance with the Rules of 1957. The appellant also challenged the order dated 6. 7. 2000 stating that in view of the Rule 25 (2) of the Rules of 1957 a person working temporarily as L. D. C. whose work is not found satisfactory shall be liable to be removed from the service; (i) by giving him one month's notice, if he has served temporarily in connection with the affairs of the State for less than three years: (2) by following the procedure as laid down in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, if he has served for more than 3 years. As the appellant has worked as L. D. C. for about one and half years he cannot be removed from service without following the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1958.
(3.) THE respondents have filed their reply and they have controverted the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge there were three writ petitions and since identical question of law was involved in all these petitions, the same were disposed of by a common judgment dated 31. 1. 2001 which is under challenge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments of the petitioners appellants as well as the respondents, observed that in view of the aforesaid facts, it emerges clearly that the petitioner had been appointed in the District Judgeship after due selection on probation basis and had not been confirmed. Thus, he had no lien therein. There are no Rules which permit the transfer of an unconfirmed employee from one Department to another Department, therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioner's transfer was dehors the Rules and if it is so, he had no right to continue in service in the Labour Court, Jaipur and as he had no lien in the Sikar Judgeship, he cannot be repatriated there. The learned Single Judge further deals with the word "lien" and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court Triveni Shanker Saxena vs. State of U. P. & Ors. (1), where the Apex Court dealing with the term `lien' elaborately has quoted its meaning from various dictionaries as under:- "the word `lien' originally means `binding' from the Latin legume, its lexical meaning is `right to retain. ' The word `lien' is now variously described and used under different context such as `contractual lien', `equitable lien', `specific lien' etc. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 28, at page 221, para 502, it is stated:- "in its premary or legal sense `lien' means a right at common law in one man to retain that which is rightfully and continuously in his possession belonging to another until the present and accrued claims are satisfied. " ;