- (1.) AN appointment was given to the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk on 21.12.1983 as a consequent to his regular selection on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The competent authority allotted him to join service in the Directorate of Employment. Subsequent thereto, he was transferred to the Department of Education. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the appointment of the petitioner was made on regular basis as a consequent to regular process of selection, but in the order of appointment a condition was erroneously mentioned about the need of qualifying typing test by the petitioner. It is stated that the condition aforesaid is required to be deleted. According to learned counsel, the Departmental Authorities also made several recommendations to the competent authority to delete the condition aforesaid but of no consequence. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that no confirmation of the petitioner has been made so far by the respondents in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957' hereinafter).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. True it is, the order of appointment contains a condition with regard to need of qualifying test but as a matter of fact that has not been pressed by the respondents at any juncture and petitioner has already been promoted and awarded selection grades, though he has not been confirmed in service by a specific order, as such, non-issuance of order of confirmation in no manner adversely effected the petitioner's service career. It is relevant to mention that the confirmation in service is a natural consequence of successful completion of probation. The petitioner completed his probation period much back in the year 1985, as such, he is deemed to be confirmed in service. The respondents too are treating him confirmed in service in view of the fact that he has already been placed in the seniority list and necessary promotions and selection grades have also been allowed to him, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-issuance of confirmation order, thus is inconsequential. For all the purposes, the petitioner is a regular substantive employee in ministerial cadre created under the Rules of 1957 and now under the Rules of 1999.
(3.) IN view of the factual position noticed above, no direction as desired is required to be given. The petition for writ is dismissed. However, for abandon caution it is made clear that if the petitioner suffers any adversity due to non-confirmation in service he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.;