Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors

5. Due to shortage of Stenographers in the Secretariat Service, the special promotees, who were working as LDCs/UDCs, were appointed as Stenographers on ad hoc basis, on various dates between 17.3.1978 and 5.5.1979, and were paid the special pay of Rs.30 per month from 19.6.1978 onwards. On 29.2.1980, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (`RPSC' for short) invited applications for 86 posts of stenographers. After conducting an examination, RPSC appointed several stenographers by way of direct recruitment. The special promotees, who were then working as ad-hoc stenographers, applied in response to the said advertisement and participated in the examination, but were not successful and were not selected. As and when the directly recruited stenographers were given postings, the special promotees working as ad-hoc stenographers were reverted from the post of Stenographers to their substantive posts as LDCs/UDCs in the years 1981 and 1982.

6. When proviso (5A) was amended on 23.1.1985 providing that persons who were holding the post of Stenographer either in temporary or adhoc 7 capacity in Rajasthan Secretariat on or before 23.5.1979 could be appointed on substantive basis, the special promotees (who had been reverted as LDCs/UDCs in 1981-82) expected that they will be considered for substantive appointment as Stenographers, as they fulfilled the requirements proviso (5A). But when proviso (5A) was further amended on 18.9.1987 clarifying that only those who were working as Stenographers on or before 23.5.1979 and who continued to hold the post as on 23.1.1985, were eligible for consideration under proviso (5A), they felt that their "right" to be considered for appointment as Stenographers on substantive basis was taken away, as they were not working as ad-hoc stenographers upto 23.1.1985 though they were holding the post of Stenographer on adhoc basis on 23.5.1979. Therefore some of the special promotees approached the Rajasthan High Court and filed WP No.2116/1989 challenging the amendment dated 18.9.1987 to proviso (5A) to Rule 5 of the Rules. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 7.8.1991 striking down the amendment dated 18.9.1987 to proviso (5A) as being unconstitutional. As a consequence, the High Court directed the State Government to consider the writ petitioners (promotees) who were working as LDCs/UDCs for substantive appointment as Stenographers in accordance with the Rules, as amended on 23.1.1985 and if as a result of such consideration, they were found suitable, they should be appointed as 8 Stenographers with consequential benefits.

20. The appellant in CA No.4937 of 2006 was initially appointed as an LDC. By order dated 23.11.1972, he was appointed as an ad hoc Stenographer in the Education Department. He was taken on transfer, on the post of Stenographer in the Secretariat, temporarily, continuing his lien on his post in the parent department, vide order dated 7.3.1977 and he joined the Secretariat on 23.3.1977. His appointment as Stenographer was made 19 substantive with effect from 15.3.1978 in his parent (Education) department on 3.7.1979. By an order dated 19.10.1981 made under proviso (5A), his appointment on the post of Stenographer in the Secretariat was made substantive with effect from 23.5.1979.

19. In view of the above, we dismiss Civil Appeal No.4935 of 2006 filed by the special promotees and allow Civil Appeal No.4936 of 2006 and declare that the appointment of the special promotees as stenographers on 25.4.1992 was prospective with effect from that date and not with effect from any previous date (either in 1978-79 or from 1.4.1985). We direct the State Government to draw the revised seniority list accordingly. Re : Civil Appeal Nos. 4937 and 4938 of 2006.

(c) For a declaration that the substantive appointment of ad hoc/temporary stenographers under proviso (5A) was null and void and that consequently they should be declared as ineligible for appearing in the Personal Assistant examination.

25. In view of the above, following the decision in Civil Appeal Nos.4935 and 4936 of 2006, we dismiss the Civil Appeal No.4938 of 2006. However, Civil Appeal No.4937 of 2006 is allowed and the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the Writ Petition No.1433 of 1983 is dismissed in so far as the appellant in CA No.4937 of 2006 (Hariharan Nair).