VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, initially appointed as a work -charged employee on the post of 'Munshi' with effect from 16th August, 1983, was regularized and conferred with the status of 'semi permanent', and 'permanent' as he completed 10 years of service on 21st December, 1993. He was brought within the ambit of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1957, as would be reflected from order dated 30th December, 1995. The petitioner complaining of discrimination and arbitrariness, in the action of the State -respondents, for not absorbing him on the post of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as the 'LDC', for short), while absorbing identically situated persons, namely, Nathu Ram, Ashok Kumar and Hari Prasad Sharma, vide orders dated 27th July, 1996, 3rd October, 1996 and 10th December, 1996; has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - (i) the impugned advertisement dated 27.7.1997 may kindly be quashed and set aside by declaring it illegal and invalid. (ii) that the impugned order dated 14.12.1996 along with the impugned action of the respondents in not taking the petitioner on the post of LDC in the regular cadre may also be kindly declared illegal, invalid by issuing writ of certiorari, with all consequential benefits. (iii) that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as LDC after having been taken on regular cadre w.e.f. 1.4.1994 being the holder of the equivalent post of Munshi in the work charge service by issuing writ of mandamus with all consequential benefits. (iv) any other writ, order or direction that may be deemed expedient under the facts and circumstances of the case be issued. (iii) cost of the petition by awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts, which needs to be recorded for the purpose of appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application are: that the petitioner after having acquired the 'semi permanent' and 'permanent' status under the Work -charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1964', for short), having completed 10 years of service ought to have been absorbed against an equivalent post. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was discharging duties of the post of 'Munshi' (equivalent to the post of LDC), but was discriminated while absorbing him on the post of 'Forest Guard' whereas those who did not even discharge the duties of the post of 'Munshi', namely, Nathu Ram, Ashok Kumar and Hari Prasad Sharma, were absorbed on the post of LDCs and thus, discrimination and arbitrariness, is apparent on the face of record.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner possessed all the required educational qualifications for appointment to the post of LDC. Referring to the order dated 20th September, 1995, learned counsel would further submit that as soon as the work -charged employee was taken on to the regular establishment with conferment of permanent status, he becomes an employee of the regular cadre and his service conditions are to be governed by the relevant rules. The petitioner also addressed a representation on 13th December, 1996, for having completed 10 years of service by 31st December, 1993, and therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed on the post of LDC. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short), conducted the special test for absorption of work -charged employees the petitioner was not required to write the special test/examination for his absorption on the post of LDC. As an abundant caution, the petitioner also served a notice for demand of justice dated 31st July, 1997, through his counsel seeking clarification. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact of special selection conducted by the Commission by initiating recruitment process vide advertisement dated 27th February, 1997. Repelling the assailment, of the recruitment process, by the petitioner as baseless and without any factual foundation sustainable in the eye of law and supporting the action of the respondents in declining the claim of the petitioner for absorption on the post of LDC; the respondents have pleaded that absorption on the post of LDC was confined only to the candidates, who had acquired the status of 'semi permanent' on or before 1st April, 1984. Since the petitioner acquired the status of 'semi permanent' on 1st April, 1986, hence, he was not entitled to be considered for absorption on the post of LDC. The State -respondents have further pleaded that earlier SB Civil Writ Petition Number 706 of 1997, was preferred by the petitioner with similar prayer. Further, the challenge to the advertisement issued by the Commission could have been incorporated by way of an amendment. The petitioner has purposely instituted the instant writ proceedings separately without detailing out the fact of institution of earlier writ application, as aforesaid.;