The amendments to the rules did not affect the petitioner's seniority, and the claim for parity in terms of seniority between the petitioner and Assessors was rejected based on the different cadres and rules governing them.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"In these circumstances it is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly and graciously be pleased to accept this writ petition, and:-

(i) the impugned notification dated 18.03.1991 making amendment in rule 7 of Municipal Service Rules, 1963 and impugned order dated 29.10.97 in not granting the benefit of past services (it means from 1978 on the post of R.O. II) be declared illegal, invalid and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari, with all consequential benefits;

(ii) in alternative the rule 7 read with rule 28 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules so far as it relates to govern R.O. II be declared discriminatory to the same set of rules governing the post of E.O. IV under the Rules of Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 and the Rules of Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, Unani Chikitsaks Service Rules, 1963 and also be declared ultra vires to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iii) the respondents be directed by issuing writ of mandamus to grant past services to the post of R.O. II w.e.f. 1978 and accordingly his seniority be fixed under the common seniority Assessor and Revenue Officer-II and accordingly the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of E.O.-III or Revenue Officer-I, with all consequential benefits against the year in which he became eligible to be considered.

(iv) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be ordered in favour of the petitioner."

2. The factual matrix of the case necessary and relevant for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition is stated infra:-

The petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis as Revenue Officer Grade-II with effect from 08.09.1978 under Rules 27 of the Rajasthan Municipal Services Rules, 1963, being a temporary appointment. The appointment order of the petitioner clearly stipulated that the appointment is for six months or till selected candidates from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') is made available, whichever is earlier.

3. The RPSC conducted examination for regular appointment on the said post in the year 1986. The petitioner though appeared, but failed and therefore his services were eventually terminated on 12.12.1986, when the post were filled on regular basis from amongst those, who were selected by the RPSC.

4. It, however, appears that the State adopted a benevolent approach and the petitioner who was terminated, along with other similarly situated Revenue Officer-II (for short 'RO-II') who could not succeed in RPSC exam and eventually terminated, was given reappointment vide order dated 15.12.1987. By this order, petitioner and other persons were appointed as Executive Officer-IV (for short 'EO-IV') on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till selection of regular candidate by RPSC, whichever was earlier. The order further contemplated that the petitioner and other newly appointed officers were granted pay protection. Further, the period during which services remained terminated was also regularised in the manner that it was treated as leave without pay, thus maintaining continuity in service.

5. In course of time, respondents amended the Rules of 1963 vide notification dated 18.03.1991, adding clause (vi) after clause (v) of second proviso of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963 as below:-

"(vi) That the name of Executive Officers Class IV and Revenue Officers Gr. II appointed vide rule 27 temporarily or in officiating capacity up to 31.03.79, shall be referred to the Commission to adjudge their suitability according to the qualifications etc. prescribed at the time of their appointments and their appointments shall be terminated immediately in case they are not adjudged suitable."

6. T