SBCWP3241/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3241/1997 Smt. Meera Mathur Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Ravi Kant Agarwal for Shri Prahlad Singh, Counsel for petitioner Shri R.K. Agarwal with} Shri Alok Chaturvedi, } Shri Reashm Bhargava } Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Smt. Meera Mathur being aggrieved of final seniority-list issued by respondents on 09.05.1997, by which her placement in earlier issued provisional seniority list dated 01.05.1991 was changed wherein she was shown at Serial No.62. In final seniority-list, she was placed at Serial No.67 and private respondents No.3 to 7, who were below her in earlier provisional seniority list, were brought above her and placed at Serial Nos.62 to 66. Contention of Shri Ravi Kant Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, is that SBCWP3241/1997 // 2 // petitioner was initially appointed after her name was sponsored by employment exchange. She along with other 15 candidates passed departmental test and on that basis she was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC'). Her initial appointment was made on regular basis therefore there was no question of her being again required to appear in departmental qualifying examination either for the purpose of appointment or confirmation. Learned counsel submitted that in the year 1978 such examiantion was passed by petitioner and she was then confirmed on the post of LDC with effect from 01.03.1979; however, petitioner is not readily in possession with her appointment and confirmation orders. She made a request to respondents to provide her copies of those orders, however such request was not accepted. It was the seniority-list dated 01.05.1991 which was later on made final and respondents could not have entertained objections raised by private respondents. The respondents did not give an opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to changing her placement in that seniority list. Despite her persistent requests, she was not provided copies of her initial appointment order and that of her SBCWP3241/1997 // 3 // confirmation. SBCWP3241/1997 // 4 // Respondents have contested the claim of petitioner that she was appointed after any written qualifying test or that she was ever confirmed in service. What is contended on their behalf is that petitioner was initially appointed purely on ad hoc/temporary basis with Government Department dealing with census operations of 1971, as typist on 15.04.1971 but on abolition of that Department on 31.12.1971 her services stood terminated. It was thereafter that Assistant Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, in its General Administrative Department, by letter dated 17.09.1975 requested the District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer, to give priority to petitioner like others, who were declared surplus due to abolition of Census Department, in the matter of appointment. She was thus appointed by order dated 26.09.1975 wherein it was clearly mentioned that necessary N.A.C. has been obtained from the Government vide its letter dated 12.09.1975 and petitioner was appointed purely as LDC on temporary basis against temporary post and subject to termination at any time without notice. While on one hand petitioner was appearing in departmental examiantions and declared fail, on the other SBCWP3241/1997 // 5 // hand she was making representations seeking exemption from such examination. Respondents have placed on record number of such representations made by petitioner on 10.06.1976, 22.06.1976 and 31.08.1976, wherein she requested for exemption from appearing in the examination. Ultimately petitioner could pass qualifying examination on 10/15.10.1979 and it was on that basis that she was confirmed in the post by order dated 10.04.1980 with effect from 01.03.1979 whereas such examination was passed by private respondents on 31.08.1979 i.e. much earlier than petitioner. It cannot be accepted on the basis of petitioner's plea that she was appointed after qualifying a written test and that she was also confirmed. Such an assertion made by petitioner has not been substantiated by any evidence produced on her behalf. Respondents have emphatically denied correctness of this plea. The private respondents on having found that they have been placed below petitioner in seniority list dated 01.05.1991 (Annexure-1), submitted objections in terms of stipulation contained in that very seniority list and therefore it cannot be accepted that said seniority list dated 01.05.1991 attained SBCWP3241/1997 // 6 // finality. The final seniority list was issued after those objections were entertained and disposed of by the respondent by order dated 09.05.1997 which is clearly indicated therein. No rule or order or instruction has been cited by learned counsel for petitioner to show that even if petitioner passed qualifying examination at later point of time then also she could be confirmed earlier than those who passed such examination prior to her. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//