Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22/3/2014 by which earlier order dated 28/9/2013 has been withdrawn and the petitioners have been required to clear the selection in terms of the stipulation made in condition no.1 of their appointment order dated 21/5/2013.
(2.) Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that at the time of initial recruitment on the post of Stenographer had undergone the rigour of regular selection, like any other process of selection that may take by way of direct recruitment and therefore the order dated 28/9/2013 was rightly passed granting relaxation to the petitioners from the requirement of qualifying short hand examination in the direct recruitment as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 amended upto January 2013 (for short, the "Rules of 1986"). Learned counsel submitted that such appointments made in the past also are being continued since 2002. Learned counsel has referred to communication dated 1/5/2013 (Ann.1) by which applications were invited from serving employees of the different courts, who possessed eligibility and knowledge of stenography and typing in Hindi and English and thereafter they were subjected to written as well as type test. Mention of Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986 in the appointment order dated 21/5/2013 was therefore superfluous and the order dated 28/9/2013 was therefore rightly passed.
(3.) Perusal of the impugned-order dated 22/3/2014 indicates that when the matter of regularization of petitioners under Rule 23(3) within four months of their appointment was brought to the notice of the High Court, the High Court did not find the order in conformity with the Rules of 1986 and in fact opined that such regularization was made in breach of the condition of the aforesaid rules. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan served upon the petitioners notice on 6/3/2014 and 11/3/2014 and thereafter petitioners submitted reply to the aforesaid notices. Their reply was considered by the administrative committee. It was thereafter that the order of regularization dated 28/9/2013 has been recalled by the impugned-order dated 22/3/2014.;