1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3479/2007 Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th December, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. V.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Bohra, for the respondents. .... The Directorate of Animal Husbandry under a notification dated 6.2.2003 invited applications from eligible candidates for the purpose of appointment as Live Stock Assistant against 500 existing vacancies. The appointments in terms of the notification dated 6.2.2003 were required to be made at consolidated salary for a period of two years. The petitioner faced process of selection and as a consequent thereto an appointment was accorded to him under an office order dated 31.1.2004. In the order of appointment it was again made clear that the persons employed shall be getting wages in a tune of Rs.3000/- per month for a term of two years. The respondents subsequent thereto initiated fresh process of selection wherein too the petitioner applied for consideration for appointment and under an order dated 11.5.2007 he was selected for appointment as Live Stock Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. The pay of the petitioner in the pay scale aforesaid was fixed at Rs.3950/- in view of 2 Schedule-VI of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1998”). The grievance sought to be ventilated in this petition for writ is that the petitioner has already worked for a period of two years as Live Stock Assistant under the order dated 31.1.2004, therefore, while making appointment under the order dated 11.5.2007 there was no need to fix the petitioner's pay at Rs.3950/-. It is also contended that the appointment in pursuant to the order dated 11.5.2007 being in continuity of the appointment made under the order dated 31.1.2004 is required to be given effect retrospectively and the petitioner is required to be treated as in employment of the respondents as Live Stock Assistant from the date he joined service in pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2004 (Anx.2). In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner under the order dated 31.1.2004 was not on regular basis but on consolidated salary for a period of two years, therefore, the term of appointment under the order aforesaid cannot be treated as regular service. It is asserted by counsel for the respondents that the fresh process selection was initiated under an advertisement dated 22.2.2006 and the appointment under the order dated 11.5.2007 was given to the 3 petitioner as a consequent to his selection. The appointment of the petitioner, therefore, was made on regular basis only under the order dated 11.5.2007. It is also pointed out that as per Schedule-VI of the Rules of 1998 as amended under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) (First Amendment) Rules, 2006, the petitioner's pay was required to be fixed at Rs.3950/- in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the appointment under the order dated 31.1.2004 was given to the petitioner on consolidated salary i.e. Of Rs.3000/- per month and without adhering the regular process of selection. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that a subsequent advertisement was issued by the respondents and the appointment under the order dated 11.5.2007 was given to him as a consequent to fresh process of selection. Pertinent to note here that the averments made in this regard in para 9 of reply to the writ petition are not controverted by the petitioner. In view of the factual position as aforesaid the petitioner came to be regularly appointed as Live Stock Assistant only under the order dated 11.5.2007 and, therefore, the respondents rightly made fixation of petitioner's pay at Rs.3950/- in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. 4 It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact there was no need to issue the order of appointment dated 11.5.2007 (Anx.6) as the petitioner was already working as Live Stock Assistant. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. The appointment under the order dated 31.1.2004 was not on regular basis but at consolidated salary and that too for a period of two years only. The regular appointment was given to the petitioner only under the order dated 11.5.2007. As such, the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regular selection cannot be treated or regularised as regular services. Counsel for the petitioner also fails to point out any provision regarding regularisation of services rendered by the petitioner by getting appointment without adhering the regular process of selection. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.