RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Service Tribunal') dated 9th July, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4006/01 and dated 16th May, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4007/01. By these two orders, the Tribunal decided two separate appeals preferred by the respondents as the question of law involved in these cases are identical therefore they are being decided together by a common judgment.
(2.) THE case of respondent No. 1 Madan Singh in writ petition No. 2006/01 is that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and on that basis Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi called him for interview on 2nd July, 1982 and thereafter appointed him vide order dated 13th July, 1982 on the post of Teacher Gr. III for a period of six months or till the availability of the selected candidates from Service Selection Commission in the pay scale of 355-10-415-15-550-20-570. Upon being further selected by Zila Parishad, Sirohi, he was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 23. 11. 1984. THEreafter on completion of period of probation of two years he was confirmed w. e. f. 23. 11. 1986 by order dated 9th May, 1988. It has been submitted that although, for grant of selection scale on completion of 9 years, the date of his initial appointment i. e. 16th July, 1982 has been taken as the basis to calculate such period of 9 years. But when the respondent published the eligibility list vide order dated 1. 4. 1987 for the purpose of promotion from Teacher Gr. III to Teacher Gr. II, the name of the respondent was shown at serial No. 22. His initial appointment was made on 16th July, 1982 but many of the persons who were appointed after him were shown senior to him in the said list. THE respondent therefore prayed for grant of seniority from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 16th July, 1982 and requested that the government be directed to treat 16th July, 1982 as the date of his regular appointment for all purposes. The case of respondent No. 1 Praveen Kumar in writ petition No. 2007/01 is that he also was initially appointed by the Block Development Officer in the similar manner on 22. 9. 1982 and thereafter further upon being selected by the Zila Parishad, Sirohi he was appointed vide order dated 16. 10. 1984. Thereafter, he was confirmed vide order dated 23. 9. 1987 w. e. f. 16. 10. 1984. The Service Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondents under two separate orders dated 9. 7. 2001 in writ petition No. 2006/01 and dated 16. 5. 2001 in writ petition No. 2007/01. These two orders passed by the Tribunal are under challenge in these two writ petitions. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate and Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Government Advocate has argued that the Service Tribunal has erred in law in treating the date 13th July, 1982 as the date with effect from which he shall be entitled to count seniority. In other words, the effect of the order of Service Tribunal would be that the respondents shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis even though their appointments were made purely on temporary basis for a period of six months or till the availability of the duly selected candidates by the District Service Selection Commission. He has argued that the appointments of the respondents were made on urgent temporary basis. Under proviso to Rule 18 (2) read with Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules of 1959") which provided that if the duly selected candidates are not available for the post of Teacher, the Panchayat Samiti may make such appointment on the basis of names sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. According to him, the initial appointment of the respondents were de hors the rules. He has further argued that the Tribunal committed an error of law in deciding that the respondents shall be entitled to seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment. Such a direction and implementation thereof would effect large number of such employees who were placed above the respondents in the merit list prepared by the District Service Selection Commission. There is another reason why the request of the respondents to assign them seniority from the date of the initial appointment cannot be accepted. When the respondents were selected, their names were placed in the select list according to the placement assigned by the Service Commission on the basis of inter se merits of all the candidates. Many of the candidates who have appeared above them in the select list would certainly be adversely effected if the respondents are assigned seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment. None of them have been impleaded as party in the appeal filed before the Tribunal. In their absence, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents and their appeals filed before the Tribunal should have been dismissed. He has therefore prayed that the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal may be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned Dy. Government Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions given in the case of State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & A. H. T. S. Association & Anr. , reported in JT 2000 (10) SC p. 561 and State of Punjab vs. Ishar Singh & Ors. , reported in JT 2001 (5) SC p. 331.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appointments of the respondents made respective on 16. 7. 1982 and 1. 10. 1982 by orders dated 13. 7. 1982 , 22. 9. 1982 passed by the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti were against clear cut vacant post and were in regular scale of pay. They were appointed only when their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. The respondents have also granted them benefit of selection scale of completion of 9 years service from the date of their initial appointments. It was therefore prayed that their initial appointments may be treated regular appointment for all practical purposes and there was no justification whatsoever not to grant them seniority on the basis of such initial appointments. The Service Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Dr. Chandra Prakash & Ors. vs. State of U. P. & Anr. , reported in (2002) 10 SCC p. 710, (2) State of Punjab vs. Rupinder Kawal Sahib & Ors. , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 179, (3) Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2004) 3 SCC p. 723 and (4) D. R. Yadav & Anr. vs. R. K. Singh & Anr. , reported in (2003) 7 SCC p. 110. He also relied upon the judgments of two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Avinash Kant vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr. , reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) p. 101 = RLW 2001 (2) Raj. 1027 and Jeewan Das vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , reported in RLR 1990 (1) p. 718. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels and perused the record. Examination of the Rules of 1959 reveals that while appointments on regular basis are required to be made under Chapter III, there is a separate chapter namely Chapter V which provided for appointment on temporary basis. In Chapter III of the Rules of 1959, starting from Rule 15 to 19 the provisions relating to recruitments are contained. According to Rule 15, Commission is required to invite applications on receiving requisition from Panchayat Samiti/zila Parishad. According to Rule 17 such applications are to be scrutinised by the Commission. The Commission has to forward its recommendations along with a merit list of the candidates prepared under Rule 18. Such merit list is required to be forwarded to the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad which shall make allotment of the selected candidates to various Panchayat Samitis. According to Rule 19, the Panchayat Samiti/zila Parishad is required to make appointment on the basis of order in which their names have been forwarded by the District Establishment Committee. Proviso to Rule 18 (2) of the Rules provides that where selected candidates are not available, the Panchayat Samiti may make the appointment on ad hoc basis from the panel prepared by the Inspector of Schools of the District. A further examination of Rule 23 in Chapter V of the Rules of 1959 provides that in the event of non-availability of selected candidates, the appointment on ad hoc basis would be made only for a period of six months by calling the names of the eligible candidates from the nearest District Employment Exchange. But, sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 provides that such ad hoc appointment shall in no case be extended beyond 6 months except with concurrence of the Committee. It further provides that the ad hoc appointment shall not be extended beyond 12 months except with prior concurrence of the said Service Commission. Rule 25 provides that a candidate who has been recruited on regular basis and has been appointed by promotion shall have to serve on probation for a period of two years. ;