- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that they were though appointed under the Work Charge Rules and then looking to the need as well as hardship of the employees, a notification was issued on 21. 12. 1989 which is as under :- "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules, persons employed on work-charged basis in public Work Department/irrigation (Indira gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira gandhi Nahar Board-Command Area development) Department/public Health engineering Department, Ayurved department and have put in at least two years continuous service as on 1. 4. 88 and have passed High School/or secondary/praveshika Examination of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or of a board recognised by the Government may be absorbed once only on the post of L. D. C. on regular basis against the vacant posts of L. D. C. in their respective department to the extent of 50% of the total vacant posts of L. D. C. on 1st April, 1988 after adjudging their suitability by the committee consisting of the following :- (1)Head of the Department or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Chief engineer/addl. Head of the Department. (2)One Senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer nominated by the Chief Engineer. (3)Chief Accounts Officer/senior Accounts officer of the concerned department. The work-charged employees who are appointed as L. D. C. shall be made regular after passing the typing test to be held by the Appointing Authority at a speed prescribed in these rules within the period of one year from the date of such appointment. "
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they should have been screened as they were eligible for consideration and thereafter they should have been given appointment on the post of LDC. According to the petitioners, from the initial date of appointment, they are working as LDC inspite of the fact that they were given appointment under the Work Charge Rules only and they were given designation of Beldar. The petitioners' contention is that in view of the notification dated 21. 12. 1989, several work charge employees who were also appointed like the petitioners were given appointment after screening from time to time. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order dated 21. 1. 2006 which has been passed in pursuance of the order passed in SBCWP no. 2082/1994 (Mool Shanker Bissa vs. State of rajasthan and Ors.) decided on 23. 11. 2004 wherein it was found that said Mool Shanker Bissa was working as work charge employee but from the time of his appointment, he was working as Pump Driver-II. He had requisite educational qualifications and the high Court directed to consider his case for absorption as LDC with effect from 1. 4. 88 or thereafter obviously from the date when the vacancy in terms of the government circular came into force. Said Mool Shanker was given appointment on the post of LDC subject to passing of type test.;