1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the seniority list dated 18.03.1991 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No. 1 and 2. Therefore, he has prayed that the said seniority list wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 23, be quashed or modified. Further it has been prayed that the orders dated 13.05.1991 (Annexure-4) and order No. 9972 dated 07.06.1993 (Annexure-5) and order No. 9973 dated 07.06.1993 (Annexure-6) may be quashed or modified. It has also been prayed by the petitioner that directions be issued that Review D.P.C. be convened and the case of the petitioner be considered and after placing him suitably, he may be given promotion on the post of Accountant from the date when his junior (respondent No. 3) was so promoted, vide order dated 13.05.1991, with all consequential benefits.

2. Broadly speaking, the facts of the case are that in the year 1981, there were vacancies for the post of Junior Accountant and for filling up the same, an advertisement was issued and thereafter written examination was held on 12.07.1981. The persons who passed the examination were subjected to interview and a select list of the 24 persons and reserve list of 16 persons were published on 17.10.1981. The name of the petitioner had appeared in the reserve list but none of the persons from it were given appointment. Later on, the petitioner was interviewed on 28.02.1983. The petitioner was then appointed as Junior Accountant by the General Manager (Personal), Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, vide his order No. 1295 dated 08.03.1983. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 amongst the five candidates who were given appointment by the aforesaid order. The placement of the persons in the appointment order was as follows:-

1. Ajay Kumar Saxena,

2. Pankaj Tiwari

3. Yashpal Singh, (respondent No. 9)

4. Om Prakash Bansal,

5. Shankar Lal Gupta. (respondent No. 8)

3. Thereafter, a seniority list was published on 02.02.1991 wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 32 and respondents Shankar Lal Gupta and Yashpal Singh were placed at Serial No. 30 and 31 respectively. Thereafter, the final seniority list of Junior Accountant was issued on 18.03.1991 wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 30 and Sankar Lal Gupta and Yashpal Singh were placed at serial No. 28 and 293 respectively. The persons placed at serial No. 23 to 27, in the seniority list of 18.03.1991 were those who had failed in the written test held in the year 1981 and had not qualified the examination. Therefore, their names did not find place in the list of successful candidates. However, they were given appointment on the post of Junior Accountant on 16.10.82. But their appointment order had not disclosed the provision of the Rules under which the selection/appointment had been made. Earlier these persons were working with the respondents on the post of Junior Office Assistant which was equivalent to the post of L.D.C.

4. Subsequently, the respondents No. 3 to 9 were given promotion on the post of Accountant, vide order dated 13.05.1991 and two orders issued on 07.06.1993 which are placed on record as Annexures-4, 5 & 6 respectively. The said orders have been impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner had then got a notice for demand of justice issued to respondent No. 1 and 2 on 06.07.91, to which no reply was received. Hence, the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply. It is stated in the reply that the appointment of the petitioner was not made after the advertisement, written examination or interview, but the same was purely on ad hoc and urgent temporary basis, under rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1980. It has been further submitted by the respondents that an advertisement was issued in the year 1981 for selection on the post of Ju