The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'regular appointment' and the eligibility criteria for granting selection scale under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 and 1989.

Anil Dev Singh, C.J.-In these batch of appeals, we are required to deal with the following question: "Whether the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee should be calculated for the purpose of granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service or whether such service rendered prior to the date of regular appointment should not be counted?"

2. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association & Anr., 2000 (8) SCC 4, held that service rendered on ad hoc basis will not be counted for grant of selection scale. A Division Bench, however, in State of Rajasthan vs. Uma Shanaker Agarwal & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1142/2002, had distinguished the Judgment of the Supreme Court and took the view that the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee should be counted for the purpose of granting him selection scale. This view was taken on the ground that the Haryana Rules, on the basis of which AHTS case was decided by the Supreme Court were different than the rules with which we are concerned. Two of us doubting the correctness of the view of the earlier Division Bench referred the matters to the Full Bench. This is how the matters have come up before us.

.3. In order to appreciate the controversy it may be necessary to narrate the facts of one of the writ petitions, as the facts in all the cases broadly follow the same pattern with difference in the dates of the appointment of the petitioners on ad hoc or urgent temporary basis and dates of their regularization. For this purpose, we have selected appeal in Writ Petition No. 58/2004 as the lead case. The facts of the case reveal that on November 3, 1979 the first respondent Farooq Ahmed was initially appointed against the post of Lower Division Clerk on temporary basis in the office of the Settlement Officer, Kota until RPSC selected candidates became available for a period of one year, whichever was earlier. The first respondent was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 355-570. Besides he was also granted allowances permissible under rules. Pursuant to the order of his appointment he joined the post on November 7, 1979. The period of his appointment was extended from time to time. It is not in dispute that the first respondent had passed the typing test and was placed in regular pay scale w.e.f. November 7, 1980 by the order of the Settlement Officer, Kota dated January 4, 1981. According to the appellants, the first respondent qualified the proficiency test held on July 5, 1981. On September 17, 1982, the services of the first respondent were regular-ized. On June 30, 1994, the first selection grade was give to the first respondent w.e.f. November 7, 1992 i.e., after completion of 9 years service from the date of his initial appointment. On March 22, 2000, the first respondent was given second selection grade w.e.f. August 20, 1999 on completion of 18 years from the date of passing proficiency test. The first respondent preferred a representation to the appellants against the grant of selection grade with effect from the date of passing of the proficiency test. The grievance of the first respondent was that he ought to have been granted second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. It was inter alia, pointed out in the representation that the first respondent had been drawing increments regularly from the date of his initial appointment and there was no jurisdiction to calculate 18 years of service from the date of passing of the proficiency test. The representation did not have the desired effect, whereupon the first respondent filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the benefit of selection grade ought to have been given by computing the service from the date of initial appointment of the respondent. The appellants feeling aggrieved of the order passed by

.the Tribunal filed w