CWP10804/09 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No.10804/09 Shanker Das Swami Vs. State & anr. Date of Order ::: 14/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed against the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 10th June, 2009 (Annexure- 2) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the seniority list dated 10/12/2002 of UDCs in which the seniority of the petitioner was not correctly assigned as per his appointment order dated 10/03/1977, has been rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as LDC on 10th March, 1977 and was regularized by way of screening under the provisions of Rule 25 (3) of Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Rules, 1957 vide order dated 29/11/1981 and was confirmed on the post of LDC vide order dated 20/01/1982 and in terms of this regular appointment in the cadre of LDC, he was considered for further promotion on the post of UDC and on the other higher post under the Rules of 1957. However, the seniority assigned to him under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1957 vide order dated 10/12/2002 was challenged by him on the CWP10804/09 2 premise that he was entitled for seniority in the cadre of LDC from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 10th March, 1977, the date on which he initially joined service. Before the Tribunal, it was also pointed out that the persons, who are placed at Serial No. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the seniority list of UDC dated 10th December, 2002, are junior to him but from the material on record, it reveals that those, who are at No. 7, 8 and 9, are those who were selected through the RPSC in the year 1976 and so far as the the person placed at No. 10 in the said seniority list is concerned, he was appointed under the Compassionate Appointment Rules and, as such, their appointment was regular and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed on regular basis only after screening under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1957 and accordingly the Tribunal held that the petitioner was rightly placed in the seniority list of the UDC dated 10th December, 2009. Counsel further submits that name of the petitioner was never included in the seniority list of LDC published by the respondent- department. It appears from record that the petitioner never raised such contention that his name was not included in the seniority list of LDC and his CWP10804/09 3 only grievance was that those, who are placed at No. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the seniority list of UDC, are junior to him for which reference has already been made (supra). Apart from it, the petitioner can not claim his seniority in the cadre of LDC w.e.f. 10th March, 1979 since it was his adhoc appointment and the seniority is determined form the date of regular selection under the Rules of 1957 which indisputably was assigned to him after being regularly appointed vide order dated 29/11/1981 and confirmed vide order dated 20/01/1982 after having been screened under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1957. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and find no manifest error which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu-10804cw2009-final.doc CWP10804/09 4