Full Judgment
Sharma, J.
1. Since the order dated August 14, 2001 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur is under challenge in this batch of six writ petitions, it was heard analogously and is being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Learned Tribunal in the impugned order held that the respondents No. 1 in all the six writ petitions (for short the employees) were entitled to get the benefit of selection scale by counting the services from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were given two months time to comply with the order.
3. According to the petitioners the impugned order is contrary to the scheme of the Notification dated January 25, 1992 under which the selection scale is granted. The employees were appointed on the permanent post of L.D.Cs. and their services were governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 (for short 1957 Rules). As per Rule 7 of 1957 Rules, the direct recruitment to the post of LDC can only be made on the recommendation of the RPSC. Thus the appointment of the employees on the post of LDC was not in accordance with the 1957 Rules. The employees appeared in the performance test and their services were regularised w.e.f. March 30, 1993 as such they came to be appointed as per the 1957 Rules only w.e.f. March 30, 1993 and their services can only be counted for the purpose of grant of selection scale from March 30, 1993. As per Rule 27 of 1957 Rules the seniority of the employees shall only be reckoned from the date of their confirmation i.e. from March 30, 1993.
4. Mr. Akhil Simlot, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan, and canvassed that the employees were not given any permanent appointment and it was not even intended to give them appointment on regular basis. Since there was temporary need to get the service of some L.D.C.'s in the General Provident Fund and State Insurance Department, 180 posts were sanctioned temporarily on the footing that appointments of daily rated clerks would come to an end on the availability of duly recruited persons. Reliance is also placed on Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P., State of Haryana v. Haryana Veternary, and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before me and perused the material on record and the case law cited at the bar.
6. 1 deem it appropriate to refer to para 3 of the Notification dated January 25, 1992 which reads as under -
'3. The service of nine, eighteen and twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in theexisting cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules.'
A look at the appointment letters of the employees reveals that they were appointed on the recommendation of selection committee and their appointment was temporary/adhoc for a fixed period, till the availability of selected candidates by the RPSC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan (supra) while considering the case of the employees observed in para 15 thus-
'It is reasonably expected that State Government should give an anxious and sympathetic consideration to the appellant and the petitioners in the special leave petitions in the matter of appointment in the available vacancies according to the seniority and the length of service rendered by such persons as daily rated lower Division Clerks in the said Insurance and Provident Fund Department by making appropriate provisions.'
7. It appears that after the said direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex 'Court on September 3, 1992 Sub-rule (10) was appended vide Notification dated 12.10.1992 with the Rule 25 of 1957 Rules which reads as under-
(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, all persons appointed as L.D.Cs. on adhoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period from 1.1.85 to 31.3.90 and are still working as such on the date this amendment comes into force shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition that they pass a performance test conducted by the head of the department concerned within a period of three years in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in part IV of Schedule I. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years.
Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be available within a period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from service.'
8. As per the scheme of 1957 Rules, recruitment on the post of LDC on urgent temporary basis is permissible. As already stated the employees were appointed temporarily on the recommendations of selection committee. In other words the employees before their selection had to pass through a selection process and their services shall be counted for the purpose of first selection scale from the date of their initial appointment in view of para 3 of Notification dated January 25, 1992 as rightly held by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The ratio of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the instant cases. The recruitment of the employees although was temporary but was not made dehors the 1957 Rules.
9. The instant writ petitions being devoid of merit stand dismissed summarily.