(1) THE appellant was appointed initially in the year 1994 on daily wage basis as L.D.C. in the State Insurance and C.P.F. Department. He worked as such up to July, 1986. Then, on the basis of a fresh selection made he was again appointed on daily wage basis on July 25, 1987 and that appointment was extended from time to time till February 29, 1988. The services of the appellant were not extended any further and it stood terminated. On December 13, 1988, other persons were appointed, but the appellant was not considered for the same. The appellant approached the High Court by filing a C.W.P in the year 1990. That writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by its order dated October 22, 1992. The High Court came to the conclusion that non-consideration of the appellants case for reappointment must be held to be in violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act The High Court, therefore, directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed w.e.f. December 13, 1988, but will not be entitled to any salary from the date of termination till the aforesaid date of reinstatement. The High Court further observed that the appellant would be at liberty to take appropriate steps as provided under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. A further condition was also inserted in the order of the High Court that the appellant would not be entitled to continue in service after the candidates selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for short "RPSC") are made available. A few says before the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the statutory recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India stood amended by a notification dated October 12, 1992. Unfortunately, the aforesaid amendment was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition. The present controversy centres round be question as to whether the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid amended provision which was brought into effect on October 12, 1992. The amended provisions of sub-rule (10) of Rule 25 are extracted hereinbelow in extenso:

"(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7 during the period from January 1, 1985 to March 21, 1990 all persons appointed as junior clerks on ad hoc or daily. wage basis, who have been working in that capacity as on the date of coming into force of this amendment, on availability of the vacancy would be appointed on regular basis under the same terms provided they. shall pass the efficiency examination within a period of three years to be conducted by the concerned Head of the Department according to the syllabus prescribed in Part IV of Schedule I. Three chances would be provided to such persons to qualify in the said examination, which would have to be availed of within the period of three years: Provided that if any person is unsuccessful in qualifying the said examination in three chances within the period of three years, he would be liable to be terminated from the services."

(2) THE State Government instead of assailing the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court not only implemented the same and reinstated the appellant in service, but also implemented the other part of the direction contained in the judgment of the High Court and terminated his services on February 12, 1996 when the candidates selected by the RPSC became available. It is this order of termination which was assailed by the appellant before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal disposed of the matter by its order dated May 21, 1996 and came to the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to be treated with other persons appointed by the order dated December 13, 1988 and since all others have been given the benefit of the amended provisions of sub-rule (10) of Rule 25, the appellant also was entitled to be considered in accordance with the amended pr