IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6513/1994 Prahlad Teli vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 18/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.L. Kumawat for the petitioner. Shri Inderjeet Singh for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondent no.2 be directed to grant him seniority from the date of his initial appointment with the District Rural Development Authority, Tonk and pay protection. Shri S.L. Kumawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed with District Rural Development Authority on 14.12.1981 on daily wage basis as a Class-IV employee. He continued to work as such and was finally appointed in the pay scale of Rs.350-5-430 vide order dated 20.10.1984. With the closer of the scheme in which petitioner was serving, he was declared surplus and was absorbed in the service of respondent no.2 i.e. Rajasthan Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Finance & Development Cooperative Corporation, Jaipur. The respondents however, illegally by their order dated 1.10.1994 absorbed the petitioner on the condition that his appointment would be treated as fresh appointment and that he shall be liable to be placed at the bottom of the seniority of Class-IV employee already working in that Corporation. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was entitled to pay protection and that the services rendered by him in District Rural Development Authority could not be altogether ignored for the purpose of seniority. Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was absorbed in the services of the respondents by taking a humanitarian approach only on the basis of a telephonic conversation which took place between the Managing Director of District Rural Development Authority and the Project Manager of the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner was declared surplus and their being no regular post with the District Rural Development Authority to continue him, his services in the ordinary course were liable to be terminated. He was taken in the services of the respondent Corporation with a view to ensuring that he was not rendered jobless. It was argued that petitioner was given fresh appointment and he cannot claim seniority among the persons who are originally appointed in the services of the Corporation because they have better claim than the petitioner for seniority as well as for payment of salary. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that petitioner was declared surplus because of the closer of the scheme in which he was engaged and the consequence of this could be his discontinuation from service. If the respondents have with a view to continuing him in service, offered him fresh appointment on the post of Class IV employee with the condition that he shall be liable to be placed at the bottom in seniority, their action cannot be said to be unreasonable or otherwise arbitrary. The petitioner has not impleaded any of the class IV employee of the respondent Corporation, who might be working with such Corporation for a long time. The question with regard to higher seniority and higher pay than those, cannot be considered behind their back. The writ petitioner in any case has been granted fresh appointment and the order of appointment itself states that the appointment of the petitioner would be subject to these conditions. The petitioner having joined the services of the respondent Corporation which was a condition for appointment, cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the same. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/