GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 14. 12. 1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 12. 11. 1998 (Annex. P/9) passed by Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the prayer of the petitioner claiming seniority over the persons selected in the year 1969 was rejected, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- In response to the advertisement issued in the year 1968 for the vacancies of 1967-68 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "rpsc") for recruitment, selection and appointment to the posts of Lecturers against various specialities including the Speciality of Physics, the petitioner applied against the Speciality of Physics. THEreafter, list of selected candidates in the Speciality of Physics was issued inter-alia other lists. THE total seats of the Lecturers in the Speciality of Physics in the Department of College Education were 12 and in the merit list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 12. According to the petitioner, in respect of the candidates whose names were shown in the merit list from serial nos. 1 to 11, appointment orders were issued on different dates during the period from 12. 2. 1969 to 13. 4. 1969 and all these persons from serial nos. 1 to 11 were appointed against the vacancies of the year 1968 but at the relevant time, the order of appointment in favour of the petitioner was not issued somehow or the other. THE further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1969, again vacancies were advertised by the RPSC on the posts of Lecturers in various specialities including 19 posts of Lecturers in the speciality of Physics. THE total vacancies in various specialities were about 100 and consequently, 100 lecturers were appointed against the vacancies of 1969. THE main case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was selected and placed in the merit list in the recruitment which was held by the RPSC in 1968 against the vacancies of 1968, but the appointment order was not issued in favour of the petitioner and furthermore, in the recruitment, which was held in the year 1969 against the vacancies of 1969 in respect of various specialities including the speciality of Physics, appointments were made against 100 posts and these appointments were made in the year 1969 itself, but though the petitioner was selected in the year 1968, but his appointment order was not issued and ultimately, through order Annex. P/1 dated 2. 2. 1970, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics on temporary basis and he was posted in the Government College, Dungarpur. THE further case of the petitioner is that though he was appointed through order Annex. P/1 dated 2. 2. 1970, but his seniority should have been reckoned from the batch of 1968 as his name appeared at serial No. 12 in the merit list of batch of 1968 and the persons, who were selected in the year 1969, should have been treated junior to him. In this respect, the petitioner made a representation and through letter Annex. P/2 dated 30. 1. 1971, the petitioner was informed that his seniority would be determined according to the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1971" ). According to the petitioner, since further promotions are given on the basis of seniority, therefore, assignment of seniority on the basis of recruitment year plays a vital role regarding further promotion. THE further case of the petitioner is that tentative seniority list dated 15. 7. 1976 was notified by the respondents through Annex. P/3 and the persons, who were selected in the year 1968 (serial No. 1 to 11 of the merit list) were shown at serial number between 727 to 752 in that seniority list and the name of the petitioner should have been shown at serial No. 753 being 12th person of merit list of batch of 1968, but instead of showing his name, the persons, who were selected in the year 1969, were shown and then, the name of the petitioner was shown below the persons selected in the year 1969 and this aspect has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. THE further case of the petitioner is that he made several representations in this respect to the respondents, but without caring his representations, the respondents again issued seniority list Annex. P/7 dated 21. 3. 1995 and in that seniority list also, the same position was maintained by the respondents. THEreafter, the petitioner again made representations and when nothing was done by the respondents, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3883/1996 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29. 9. 1997 in the following manner:- " THE representations of the petitioner, three in number, are remaining undecided with the respondents. Interest of justice would be met, if at present the respondents are directed to decide the representations as expeditiously as possible preferably in two months from the date of the receipt of this order. THE petitioner shall have recourse of further remedies in the event the representations being decided against the petitioner. " In compliance of the order dated 29. 9. 1997 passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted four representations and also filed contempt petition, but of no avail and ultimately, through impugned order Annex. P/9 dated 12. 11. 1998, the prayer of the petitioner claiming seniority over the persons selected in the year 1969 was rejected by the respondent No. 1 holding inter-alia that in the year 1968, 12 persons were selected for the posts of Lecturers in Physics, but on the contrary, 11 posts were given to RPSC and therefore, 11 persons on the recommendations of the RPSC were given appointments and since out of 11 persons, one person Rameshwarlal did not join, therefore, RPSC recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Lecturer in Physics being 12th person of merit list, but since the main list was forward by RPSC on 2. 12. 1968 and since six months were expired on 1. 6. 1969 and since the name of the petitioner was sent after the expiry of period of six months, therefore, correspondence took place between the respondents and the RPSC and after that, appointment of the petitioner was made through order Annex. P/1 dated 2. 2. 1970 and therefore, in these circumstances, the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to seniority of the batch of 1968 and, therefore, he should have been placed above the candidates selected in 1969 was rejected finally by the respondents. Aggrieved from the order Annex. P/9 dated 12. 11. 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. In this petition, the main case of the petitioner is as follows:- (i) That since the petitioner was recruited and selected in 1968, therefore, he should have been placed just below the recruitees of 1968 immediately after the candidate of merit No. 11, but placing him after the recruitees of 1969, is wholly unjustified, unreasonable and opposed to public policy and thus, the impugned order Annex. P/9 should be quashed and set aside. (ii) That seniority should have been determined on the basis of recruitment year and not on the basis of date of appointment. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent No. 1 through impugned order Annex. P/9 dated 12. 11. 1998 and since the appointment to the petitioner was given on 2. 2. 1970 through order Annex. 1, therefore, he cannot get seniority prior to that date. Furthermore, no doubt RPSC sent the list of 12 persons, but out of 12 persons, 11 persons were given appointment and in the case of the petitioner, the clearance was given by the RPSC in the year 1970 and thus, he cannot get seniority prior to that. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner belonged to the batch of 1968 in which 12 persons were recommended by the RPSC and the name of the petitioner stood at serial No. 12, but the Government issued appointment orders in respect of 11 persons and at that time, the petitioner was not given appointment being 12th person of the merit list. From perusing the impugned order Annex. P/9 dated 12. 11. 1998, it is also clear that the Government issued appointment orders in respect of 11 persons only and since out of 11 persons, one person, namely, Rameshwar Lal did not join, therefore, the name of the petitioner was sent by the RPSC for appointment being 12 person of the merit list and ultimately, the petitioner was given appointment on 2. 2. 1970 through order Annex. P/1. There is also no dispute on the point that in between the above period, 100 persons of batch of 1969 were also recruited and selected by the RPSC and all the 100 persons were given appointment.
(3.) THE question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstance the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the persons selected in the year 1969 though he was recruited in 1968, but appointment was given to him on 2. 2. 1970 through order Annex. P/1 or not. In my considered opinion, the case of the petitioner that he should be treated senior to the persons appointed in 1969 cannot be accepted because of the following reasons:- (i) That the petitioner was appointed through order Annex. P/1 dated 2. 2. 1970 and in that appointment order, there is no mention of the fact that he would be given seniority as 12th person of the merit list of 1968 and that appointment order is silent on this aspect. Therefore, from appointment order Annex. P/1, the petitioner has got no right to claim seniority of the batch of 1968. (ii) That the date of appointment is normally the starting point of computation of the length of service and this principle has been justified on the basis of the rule of fairness and the anxiety to avoid any injustice. " Recruitment" and "appointment"-meaning of (iii) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra and Ors. (1), has proceeded to decided as to the meaning and effect of the words "recruitment" and "appointment". The term "recruitment" connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contra distinction the word "appointment" means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office. Recruitment is just an initial process. That may lead to eventual appointment in the service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case further observed that recruitment cannot be tantamount to an appointment. Thus, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though the petitioner is a recruitee of the year 1968, but actual appointment was given to him on 2. 2. 1970 through order Annex. P/1, therefore, he will be treated as recruited on 2. 2. 1970 and not prior to that and when this being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority of the batch of 1968 and he is also not entitled to claim seniority over the candidates selected in 1969. In view of the above, the argument of the petitioner that recruitment year should have been treated as basis for determination of seniority stands rejected and on the contrary, it is held that for the purpose of determination of seniority, actual date of appointment should be taken into consideration. (iv) That apart from this, inclusion of any candidate's name in the merit list sent by the RPSC confers no right to appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that such candidate is suitable in all other respect for appointment to the post concerned. In this case, through impugned order Annex. P/9 dated 12. 11. 1998, the circumstances have been explained by the respondents as to why the petitioner was not given appointment in the year 1968 and therefore, from every point of view, the appointment of the petitioner would be treated from the date when he was actually appointed on 2. 2. 1970 through order Annex. P/1 and not prior to that. Thus, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs. . ;