CWP-1279/04 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1279/2004 Shankar Lal Yogi Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date Of Order :: 28/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. K.C. Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. M.F. Baig, for respondent. With the consent of parties, the petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner who is working on the post of Langri (cook) at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur approached this Court with the grievance that despite he is working since 1992 but has not been regularized so far. However, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent in which it has been averred that the petitioner had not worked for few months in different year, details of which have been referred in para 4 of the reply, and it appears to be a reason for not considering his services for regularization. However, pending petition, a notification has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by which sub-rule(4) has been added to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules,1999 which CWP-1279/04 (2) reads as under :- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the persons irregularly appointed on any duly sanctioned posts mentioned in column number 2 against serial number 4 of schedule and completed ten years service on 10.4.2006, without intervention of any court or tribunal, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a committee consisting of- (i) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel; (ii) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary; and (iii)Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, of the concerned department: Provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is available at the time of screening. The Appointing Authority shall issue appointment CWP-1279/04 (3) order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the screening committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order.” Counsel for petitioner submits that his candidature may be considered in the light of the notification dt.27.2.09 as he has already completed more than ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 and is continuously working on the date of issuance of the notification and hence entitled to be considered for regularization of services on being screened under the present amendment notification. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioner had not worked for few months in different years, reference of which has been made in para 4 of the reply, and since he has not continuously worked for ten years, as such is not required to be considered for regularization in terms of the amendment notification dt.27.2.09. It is not disputed that petitioner joined service as 'Langri' (cook) and working at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur since 1992 and presently also discharging his regular duties. Sub-rule(4) of Rule 6 which has been added by amendment notification dt.27.2.09 clearly postulates that those who have CWP-1279/04 (4) completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 without any intervention of any court or tribunal and are presently discharging their regular duties are entitled to be screened. However, in the instant case, the petitioner joined service in 1992 as 'Langri' (cook) and has completed more than ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 and is continuously discharging his duties on the date of issuance of the notification dt.27.2.09 and it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had worked under the intervention of the Court or Tribunal, thus in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner's case is also covered and required to be considered in terms of the notification dt.27.2.09. Consequently, the petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for screening in terms of amendment notification dt.27.2.09 and may pass appropriate orders within three months. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.4 1279cw04Jul28Fnl.doc