KOKJE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is employed on the post of Cook Cum Attendant in the Medical and Health Department of the State of Rajasthan. According to the petitioner he is a Class-IV servant of the State Govt. His name was included in the seniority list of Class-IV employees of the S. P. Medical College, Bikaner. THE petitioner claims to be eligible for promotion to Class-III services under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. According to him, two Class-III posts are lying vacant in the Office of the Principal, S. P. Medical College, Bikaner, but the petitioner was not being considered for promotion to the post on the ground that under the Rajasthan Service Rules as amended on 17. 5. 1990, he cannot be categorized as a Class IV Servant. On the Principal of College refusing to consider him to be a Class IV servant and therefore not considering him for promotion to the Class-III post, the petitioner served a notice demanding justice on the respondents. However, when no relief was given, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the decision of the Principal, S. P. Medical College, Bikaner not to consider him to be a Class IV Servant and therefore considering him ineligible for promotion. The short point involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner can be denied him status as a Class IV employee of the State. The ground on which the petitioner was denied the status of a Class IV employee is that after amendment of the Rajasthan Service Rules on 17. 5. 1990, Class IV services meant services in respect of posts carrying pay scale No. 1 or pay scale No. 2 as contained in the Pay Scales Rules in force. I fail to understand as to how the Rajasthan Service Rules which do not classify the posts in Govt. services could be pressed into service to deny a classification claimed by the petitioner. So far as the classification of Govt. servants is concerned, it is not the Rajasthan Service Rules, but the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (For short C. C. A. Rules) would be relevant rules governing the classification. When specific rules have been framed by the State for classification of its employees, the question has to be determined on the basis of those rules and not on the basis of some other rules which do not govern classification. Rule 6 of the C. C. A. Rules classifies the Civil Services under four heads: (i) the State Services, (ii) the Subordinate Services, (iii) the Ministerial Services and (iv) the Class IV Services. Rule 10 provides that Class IV services shall consist of (a) members of the services included in schedule-IV, (b) persons who hold in a substantive capacity posts included in schedule-IV and not borne on the cadre of any other services, (c) persons appointed on an adhoc basis pending final selection according to the Rules of Integration Department on the posts borne on the cadre of the services referred to in clause (a) or on the posts referred to in clause (b ). Thus in view of Rule 6 (1) of the C. C. A. Rules, it is clear that the Govt. is duty bound to classify civil services into four categories and an employee must fall in one of the categories. The Govt. cannot claim that any of its employees holds a post which does not fall in any of the four categories specified by Section 6 (1 ). More over Rule 11 of the C. C. A. Rules empowers the Govt. to classify a post for the purpose of C. C. A. Rules, if any post, not included in any services, is held by a person who is not a member of the services specified under Rules 7, 8, 9 and 10. Thus, even assuming that there may be a post outside the classification provided by Rule 6 (1) it is the duty of the Govt. to classify that post in one of the categories specified by Rule 6 (1) of the C. C. A. Rules. When an employee claims the lowest category namely the Class IV services, there is no reason why the Govt. should not accept that classification or pass an order under Rule 11 classifying the post held by such employee to be falling under Class IV services. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the post of the petitioner as a Class IV post either by accepting the post to be falling in Class IV services or by passing an order classifying the post under Rule 11 to the C. C. A. Rules. The petitioner shall not be denied consideration to the post of Subordinate services on the ground that he is not in Class IV services. In view of the time lost in this litigation because of which the petitioner might have been deprived of his chances of promotion, the respondents shall consider his case for promotion to a post, if it is vacant, in the subordinate services expeditiously and respondents shall also consider his case for being compensated for the loss caused to him in the matter of seniority as well as consequential benefits in view of the fact that his juniors might have been promoted in the meanwhile. .;