PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE, on similar set of facts, same reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners, the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) PETITIONERS have made following prayers in the writ petitions:- " (i) To struck down the criteria for promotion as laid down in rule 24, especially the entry in columns 4 and 7 to the post of S. No. 3 under the head of Administrative Officers and to the post of S. No. 1 under the head of Technical Officers, being violative of the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) To declare that the clubbing of four different posts i. e. , Assessor, Office Supdt. , Revenue Officer grade II and Executive Officer Class IV for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Officer Class Iii and Revenue Officer Grade I is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of equality of law as well as provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Further be pleased to direct the respondent to amend the rule 28 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 so as to delete the word `substantive' before the word `appointment' and then to count/reckon the continuous service done on ad- hoc/temporary basis for more than 5 years, for the purpose of seniority. (iv) Further be pleased to direct the respondent to confirm the petitioner to the post of Revenue Officer grade II from the date of his initial appointment i. e. , 8. 9. 1978. (v) Further be pleased to direct the respondent to either amend the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 so as to make a rule of like nature of rule 8 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, giving retrospective effect, so as to give the benefit of ad-hoc/temporary service for the purpose of counting of seniority by confirming them from the date of the initial appointment on temporary basis or in alternative, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to delete the rule 8 (4) from the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 so as to remove the anomaly and discrimination amongst offices of Rajasthan Municipal Services. (vi) To further direct the respondent to remove the anomaly with regard to pay scales amongst Assessors, Office Supdt. Executive Officer Class IV and that of Revenue Officer grade II and that of Revenue Inspectors, and further direct the respondent to pay Revenue Officers grade II in the pay scale higher than that of Assessors and Revenue Inspectors. " It may be pertinent to mention here that petitioner Om Prakash Gupta was initially appointed as Revenue Officer Gr. II on temporary basis on 8. 9. 1970 and was given substantive appointment on selection by Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the above post on 12. 12. 1986. Whereas, petitioner Dinesh Kumar Pareek (Writ Petition No. 5068/1997) also was first appointed on temporary basis as Revenue Officer Gr. II on 17. 11. 1977 and on substantive basis after selection by the RPSC on 12. 12. 1986 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963. The petitioners are now aggrieved by subsequent amendments made in the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Service Rules, more particularly, the clubbing of four posts in Schedule of the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Service Rules by which persons working on such posts have been given benefit of promotion to the State services. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the benefits of regularisation given to some of the employees employed during a particular period by way of amendment in the above Rules with a prayer for similar provisions in the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules so that the petitioners may also get benefits of substantive appointment from the date of their initial temporary appointment. After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioners are covered by the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, which are treated as State Service and the recruitment is to be made through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Rules are framed by the State Government for each services looking to the nature of work and exigencies of each services. There cannot be uniform parrity in all cadres of services in different Rules.
(3.) IT appears that the contentions as raised in the present writ petitions are wholly hypothetical. IT is the discretion of the State Government to frame rules and also make necessary amendments from time to time looking to the exigencies of the services. IT is not for this court to adjudge equivalence of different services and also issue directions for making necessary amendments in the Rules. Large numbers of persons might have been given benefit of the amendments made in the Rules or even been given promotion as per the Rules existed at the relevant time long back. However, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, even otherwise, no directions can be issued for unsettling the whole settled position, more so, when no objection, grievance or even amendments were challenged by the petitioners at the relevant time in regard to their regularisation from the date of initial temporary appointment. The benefit has been given to all the employees covered by the Rules uniformally. IT is not the case of the petitioners that the benefit has been given to particular person or to a particular class of persons for some ulterior motives. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the prayers as made in the present writ petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as having no merit. .;