1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1962/2007 Prakash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 28th April, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. .... As per Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (Market Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1975”) an appointment on urgent temporary basis was given to the petitioner as Auction Clerk by order dated 13.6.1980. In pursuant to the order aforesaid the petitioner joined service on 12.7.1980. Regular pay scale of Rs.355-570 was allowed to the petitioner under an order dated 26.7.1980 and by an order dated 23.6.1983 he was directed to appear in the type test which was qualified by him on 9.7.1983. After qualifying type test referred above, a provisional seniority list relating to the clerks working with the respondents was issued in the year 1984 showing the petitioner appointed on 12.7.1989. In the final seniority list dated 6.4.1985 the same position was 2 maintained. In an another seniority list issued on 18.9.1986 the petitioner was placed at serial No.42, with 12.7.1980 as his date of initial appointment. For regular appointment as clerk, the respondents should have called names from the employment exchange and the appointment of the petitioner being made without recommendation of the employment exchange, a relaxation was extended by the respondents vide order dated 31.8.1992. Subsequent thereto, the selection grades on completion of 9 and 18 years of service were granted to the petitioner by treating 12.7.1980 as the date of his initial appointment. The respondents on 6.11.2003 issued an another provisional seniority list wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner was shown as 31.8.1992. The petitioner objected the same, but without considering the same a final seniority list was issued on 27.5.2005 by showing 31.8.1992 as the date of his initial appointment. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal came to be rejected on 17.10.2006, being withdrawn with liberty to file a writ petition before this Court. During pendency of the appeal aforesaid, by a communication dated 8.9.2006 an instruction was given to the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali Marwar by the Director, Agriculture 3 Produce Marketing, Directorate to treat 31.8.1992 as date of initial appointment of the petitioner, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. It is stated that an appointment was given to the petitioner as per the Rules of 1975 under the order dated 13.6.1980. He subsequently qualified type test and was placed in the seniority list of substantive Lower Division Clerks. The relaxation extended in the year 1992 validates the illegality that was made in the year 1980 and, therefore, the date of initial appointment of the petitioner is required to be treated as 12.7.1980, the date on which the petitioner joined service in pursuant to the order dated 13.6.1980. Per contra, as per the respondents the initial appointment of the petitioner was erroneous and the same stood regularised on 31.8.1992, therefore, the date of appointment of the petitioner is rightly determined as 31.8.1992. I have considered the arguments advanced and also perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the appointment was given to the petitioner under the Rules of 1975 on urgent temporary basis. The petitioner under the instructions of the respondents qualified type test 4 and he was placed in the seniority list of the substantive Lower Division Clerks and that position was maintained by the respondents for years together. The selection grades were also given by the respondents to the petitioner by treating 12.7.1980 as his date of initial appointment. It is true that a relaxation was extended on 31.8.1992, but that was made only to validate an illegality that occurred in the year 1980. No fresh appointment was accorded to the petitioner. The relaxation granted was to satisfy a condition that was to take place in the year 1980. Hence, the action taken on 31.8.1992 is required to relate back, that is the date on which the appointment of the petitioner was actually made. The respondents themselves, for the years together and even after extending the relaxation under the order dated 31.8.1992 treated 12.7.1980 as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. The relaxation as a matter of fact was not at all necessary as by the act of the respondents i.e. by placing the petitioner in seniority list of substantive clerks after qualifying the type test, the appointment stood validated. The grant of relaxation, therefore, in no way be treated as a fresh appointment. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 30.11.2004 by treating 31.8.1992 as the date of 5 appointment of the petitioner is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to treat 12.7.1980 as the date of his initial appointment and his seniority be also determined accordingly. The selection grades for which the petitioner is entitled be also given to him by treating 12.7.1980 as his date of initial appointment. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.