A surplus employee who was holding a substantive post prior to being declared surplus is entitled to be appointed substantively to a permanent post, if the post is clearly vacant, and his seniority shall be determined accordingly.

1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated Dec., 29, 1989 (Anx. 17) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur be set aside and the seniority lists dated November 28, 1987 (Anx. 14) and Sept., 8, 1989 (Anx. 15), so far as they relate to the petitioner, may be quashed & set aside and respondent No. 2-The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur be directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner under Rule 15( i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (for brevity, the Rules, 1969') and direct them to give benefit of substantive service to the petitioner w.e.f. March 1, 1974 and place him above all the Inspectors Grade II, who are appointed after March 1, 1974.

2. In response to an advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Inspector in Land & Building Tax Department. After a written test and interview before the Selection Committee, he was declared successful and appointed vide order dated September 3, 1973 (Anx. 2) as Inspector (Trainee). After successful completion of the training, he was posted as Inspector (Trainee) vide order dated October 24, 1973 (Anx. 4) and, thereafter, appointed on Probation as Inspector Grade II vide order dated March 1, 1974 (Anx. 5). At the time of appointment, the post of Inspector, Land & Building Tax Department (Trainee) was a temporary post. The post of Inspector Grade II held by the petitioner was declared permanent by the Government vide order dated February 27, 1981 and he was confirmed as Inspector, Land & Building Tax Department w.e.f. February 27, 1981, by order of the Director, Land & Building Tax Department dated September 1, 1981 (Anx. 6). The posts of Land & Building Tax Department were abolished by the Government vide order dated April 24, 1982, as a result of which, the petitioner alongwith several other persons, was declared surplus vide order dated April 26, 1982 (Anx. 7). The case of the petitioner was considered by Absorption Committee as constituted under Rules, 1969 and petitioner's name was recommended to be absorbed on the post of Excise Inspector Grade II. An order to this effect was passed by the Secretary, Absorption Committee, General Administration Department on June 25, 1982 (Anx. 8), whereby, the petitioner came to be absorbed as Excise Inspector Grade II. It was also mentioned in Anx. 8 that the Appointing Authority, as per para 4, shall issue transfer orders by way of formal appointment. Thereafter, order dated July 3, 1982 (Anx. 9) was issued by the Commissioner, Excise Department, in which, it was mentioned that the petitioner is absorbed on temporary basis and he will have to pass Departmental Examination within a period of two years. A tentative seniority list of Excise Inspectors Grade II came to be issued as on January 1, 1984 by respondent No. 2 vide order dated Jan., 30, 1984, in which, the petitioner's name was not shown and instead, a note was appended below the list, wherein, it was mentioned that proceedings for absorption in respect of the petitioner and six other persons are being taken and question of their seniority will be finalised, after finalisation of the matter A final seniority list was issued on April 12, 1983, by which, tentative seniority list was maintained and petitioner's name was omitted from this seniority list of Excise Inspector Grade II. Respondent No. 2 issued an order on May 8, 1917 (Anx. 12), by which, the names of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were inserted in the seniority list dated April 12, 1985 and objections were invited from the persons aggrieved by their placement. The petitioner submitted his objections vide representation dated May 19, 1987 (Anx. 13). Respondent No. 2 published tentative seniority list of Excise Inspector Grade II vide order dated September 25, 1987, wherein, the name of the petitioner was placed at No. 128 against the above-mentioned provisional seniority list. Th