MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed under the High Court Ordinance of 1949, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in S. B. C. W. Petition No. 6972/92, wherein the appellant-petitioner had challenged the seniority list of Drug Inspectors and was claiming that his name should have been placed higher on the seniority list by granting him benefit of the appointment while he was functioning in a temporary capacity on the post of Drug Inspector.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner had been initially appointed on 26. 2. 1977 in a temporary capacity on ad-hoc basis on the post of Drug-Inspector and continued to function for a period of seven years. Thereafter the petitioner was not granted a regular appointment on the post but a fresh selection for the post of Drug-Inspectors was initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1984. The petitioner also applied for the post and by virtue of fresh selection, he was granted an order of regular appointment on 17. 11. 1984 on which he continued. In the year 1992 a seniority list of Drug Inspectors was prepared and the petitioner was assigned his place on the seniority list by taking the date of his regular appointment which was granted to him in the year 1984 vis-a-vis the persons who had also been appointed in the year 1984. The petitioner assailed the seniority list and submitted before the department that while preparing the seniority list, his seniority should have been counted from the year 1977 when he was appointed in a temporary capacity and not from 1984 when he was appointed afresh by the R. P. S. C. After examining the case of the petitioner-appellant-herein in the light of the ratio of the decisions delivered by the Supreme Court as also the Rajasthan High Court, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the petitioner-appellant could not be assigned seniority on the basis of the services rendered by him in a temporary capacity and he would be entitled for the benefit of services only when he was appointed regularly by the RPSC against which this appeal has been preferred. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the petitioner-appellant admittedly was appointed in the year 1977 with a clear averment in the order of appointment dated 26. 2. 1977 that the appointment would be for a period of six months from the date of taking over the charge or till the regularly selected candidates are made available by the RPSC. It is no doubt true that the petitioner-appellant thereafter continued for a long time on the post in an adhoc capacity which was seven years but thereafter when a fresh selection for the post of Drug Inspectors was held in pursuance of the Rules, the petitioner not only acquiesced with the situation by participating in the selection process, but also failed to challenge the same in any legal or sustainable ground. The petitioner at the most during the relevant time, in the year 1984, could have assailed the fresh selection, which was made by the RPSC in the year 1984 and perhaps could have submitted that he had a right to continue in the job for having been allowed to continue on the post for a long time. But as already stated, the appellant had applied afresh for the post when the advertisement was issued by the RPSC for making fresh appointment on the post of Drug Inspector in the year 1984, after which the petitioner-appellant also succeeded in securing an order of appointment. It is thus obvious that a fresh order of appointment having been granted to him in the year 1984, his seniority will have to be counted from the date of his selection and regular appointment and, therefore, if his seniority is counted from the date of his fresh appointment, we cannot find fault with the action of the respondents while determining his seniority from the date of his regular appointment to be the date from which seniority had to be determined for the petitioner as also other similarly situated persons. It has to be taken note of that it is not the case of the appellant that after having served in a temporary capacity for seven years he was granted regular appointment in the year 1984 automatically meaning thereby that he was absorbed on the post in which case it could perhaps be argued that the employee having been absorbed on the post in regular manner could have been granted the benefit of his past services which he had rendered in temporary capacity. Here is a case where a fresh selection was made by the RPSC by advertising the post and assessing comparative merit of the applicants including the petitioner and a fresh order of appointment was thereafter issued by the RPSC. Therefore, the fresh appointment cannot be allowed to be linked with the earlier temporary appointment which had not been granted in favour of the petitioner by the RPSC but by a Committee which had been constituted for granting temporary appointments incorporating a categorical averment therein that the appointment was temporary in nature and was to remain effective till regularly selected candidates were made available by the RPSC. As already stated, the petitioner at the relevant time in the year 1984, could have raised a dispute challenging the fresh selection made by the RPSC on account of their continuation on the post for seven long years but once having accepted the fresh order of appointment after going through a fresh selection procedure, we do not find any substance in the plea of the petitioner that the earlier services rendered as a temporary employee-which appointment was not routed through the RPSC selection, could be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority. We therefore uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and are pleased to dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. . ;