Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 13.10.2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by respondents challenging the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dt. 24.09.2012 has been allowed. The appellant has sought grant of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service w.e.f. 04.09.1993. The appellant had initially joined as Constable with Rajasthan Police on 22.09.1989. He is, thereafter, stated to have applied for selection to the post of Stenographer Grade -II (Hindi) in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. Vide order dt. 01.09.1993 the appellant was appointed to the post of Stenographer Grade -II (Hindi) in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and he joined as such on 04.09.1993. Subsequently, in response to advertisement for the post of Stenographer in the office of settlement department he applied for recruitment through Rajasthan Public Service Commission and on being declared successful was issued appointment letter on 15.03.1997 and he joined as such on 01.04.1997.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is eligible for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 04.09.1993 whereon he assumed charge of the post of stenographer in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand as he had been appointed after having been duly selected. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside as he was eligible for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 04.09.1993. He has also submitted that the reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported as : (2009) 12 SCC 49 is misplaced as it was not applicable to the case of appellant as it pertains to the case of daily employees and untrained teachers who had been granted selection grade from the date of initial appointment although there was requirement of the passing proficiency test before regularization.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.;