Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who last served in the office of Director of Economics and Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur as a Computer and retired from the office of the said respondent on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1993 has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on the post of Computer and their subsequent promotions on the higher posts as illegal, ultra-vires and contrary to the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Services (Recruitment & other service Conditions) Rules 1960, the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Statistical Service rules, 1971 and of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules of 1960, 1969 & 1.971 respectively).
(2.) The case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as a Computer in the scale of Rs. 80-200 + usual allowances as admissible to the employees of the State Government from time to time vide (Annexure-3) dated 12.1.1959. His appointment was made purely on temporary basis for a period of six months or till a regularly selected candidate in pursuance of the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") was made available, whichever being earlier. The appointment of other respondents (respondent nos. 3 to 5) on the post of Statistical Assistant was made in the office of respondent No. 2 later in point of time than the petitioner. The same mode of appointment was adopted with regard to the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 as the petitioner. The only point of distinction between the appointment of the petitioner and that of the private respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is that while in the case of petitioner, the concurrence of R.P.S.C. was not obtained by respondent No. 2, whereas in the case of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the concurrence of the R.P.S.C. was obtained though subsequent to their appointment after their having passed the screening test and on the basis of which they were recommended by the R.P.S.C. The appointment of the petitioner was, however, kept provisional which was neither ad-hoc nor a temporary appointment, whereas in the case of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 soon after the recommendation of the R.P.S.C. had been obtained and it's concurrence in the matter of their respective appointments w.e.f. 6.4.1974, they were placed in the category of regularly selected candidates. This fact is also borne-out from the perusal of (Annexures 7 & 8) dated 30.1.1.1987 & 26.7.1984 respectively, which are appointment orders, issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondents Nos. 3 & 4 on the recommendations of the R.P.S.C., Ajmer.
(3.) From the perusal of the said documents, it is clearly apparent that the appointment of the said candidates was made on regular basis. With regard to the appointment of the petitioner, it tannot be inferred that his appointment was on regular basis since the concurrence of the R.P.S.C. was obtained by respondent No. 2 through the Chief Secretary of the State for making temporary appointments on the post of Computer vide the letter dated 9.8.1958 in accordance with the procedure laid down for such appointments till the regularly selected candidates were made available for such appointments.;