IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3254/02 Ram Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 7/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 25.6.2001 whereby the representation of the petitioner for his repatriation to the Education Department as Lecturer was rejected. Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was substantively appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Economics with the Education Department of the State on recommendation of the RPSC and was appointed vide order dated 20.9.1995. He while serving on the post of Lecturer applied for appearing in the Rajasthan State Subordinate Combined Competitive Examination, 1997. The petitioner was appointed in that service on the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer vide order dated 22.12.1999. In the meantime, the petitioner had the change of mind and represented the respondents that since his lien still retained on the old post of Lecturer (Economics), he should be allowed to resume his duties back on the said post. The Director College Education arbitrary rejected his representation. Learned counsel submitted that according to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 no government servant appointed on substantive basis to any permanent post, can be left without lien even with his consent. The petitioner in the subsequent appointment was appointed for a period of two years on probation by order dated 22.12.1999 and before he was made permanent on that post, he was willing to come back to his old post, but the respondents denied his request. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer was made vide order dated 20.9.1995. This appointment was purely on temporary basis. The Director, College Education rejected the application of the petitioner precisely on the ground that the petitioner was only temporary in his old post of Lecturer and therefore he did not acquire any lien. He also submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on substantive basis following the selection procedure prescribed by RPSC and was appointed on substantive basis. It is evident from the appointment order dated 22.12.1999 that he was on probation for the period of two years, thus he in fact acquired his lien in the Commercial Tax Department. He should not therefore be sent back to the Education Department. The writ petition be therefore dismissed. Consideration of the aforesaid arguments indicate that while in the first appointment, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, but second time his appointment was made on probation basis and at both the times, he was selected by RPSC. If what is contended by the petitioner is accepted with respect to the first appointment, the same logic would apply to the second post where he was substantively appointed on probation. The petitioner having been appointed temporarily only in the Education Department and subsequently securing of appointment on substantive basis in the Commercial Taxes Department where he was appointed on probation for a period of two years cannot be said to have been acquired lien in both the places. No law has been cited that such an employee who has been selected on regular and substantive basis on recommendation of the RPSC can go back to his old appointment which he ultimately left. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/