CWP 1127/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2000 Prahlad Singh Versus RCSAT, State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 24/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Pratap Singh, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.24/05/99 passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner stood retired from his service on 30/06/89 – after almost four years whereof, order dt.07/06/88 (Ann.12) denying the benefit of Rule 26A of Rajasthan Service Rules (“RSR”) was assailed by him. Petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 01/07/55; did his B.Ed in the year 1967 and was appointed on urgent temporary basis as Teacher Gr.II vide order dt.12/12/67 but was reverted back to his substantive post of Teacher Gr.III vide order dt.22/04/68; and later on, was appointed as Teacher Gr.II vide order dt.10/10/68 on which he prayed that he was entitled for the benefit of Rule 26A of RSR but was specifically denied vide order dt.07/06/88 – against which petitioner approached the Tribunal. After adjudication, apart from delay in CWP 1127/2K //2// approaching the Tribunal, it was observed that even on merits, petitioner was not entitled for benefit of Rule 26A of RSR as his appointment as Teacher Gr.II was not considered as promotion made according to the seniority of the post of Teacher Gr.III – in absence whereof, benefit of pay fixation U/r 26A of RSR was not made admissible to him. Counsel for petitioner has tried to convince this Court that other similarly situated persons to whom, learned Tribunal has extended benefit of protection of Rule 26A of RSR but case of instant petitioner was not considered. In what circumstances and on what material, orders were passed in favour of persons whom relief was granted by Tribunal, it is difficult to observe at present but as regards facts of instant petition, the Tribunal was not satisfied about limitation as provided under law which is sixty days and petitioner preferred appeal assailing the order dt.07/06/88 in the year 1993; still has observed that appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.II vide order dt.11/10/68 was not promotion as being not given on the basis of seniority of the post of Teacher Gr.III; certainly benefit of Rule 26A of RSR was not admissible to petitioner. This Court does not CWP 1127/2K //3// find any error being committed by learned tribunal in the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/1127CWP00.doc