ORDER

1. Leave granted. Heard both sides.

2. The appellant was a Class-IV employee in the Jaipur District. He joined the service in 1981. In 1982 it appears that there was a strike by the Lower Division Clerks of the High Court and as there was dearth of sufficient number of L.D.C.s, the appellant was promoted to the cadre of L.D.C. and was given an appointment as L.D.C. but with a condition that if he does not pass the requisite test his service would be terminated. The appellant could not pass the test which qualifies him as an L.D.C. and as he has failed the test, the authorities terminated his service in the year 1995. The appellant though challenged his termination, he was not successful.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the High Court of Rajasthan.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant now contends that if he was not found suitable for the post of L.D.C. as he had not passed the requisite test, the authorities should not have treated him as out of service and he was entitled to continue as a Class-IV employee. This contention, it appears, to be fair. Learned Counsel for the High Court of Rajasthan contends that in the appointment order of L.D.C. i