JUDGMENT :

1. The legal issue involved in this petition is that “whether ad-hoc service of an employee can be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority?”

2. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble High court may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 7.12.99 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 14.08.98 may kindly be upheld.

Any other reliefs or order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly appointment was given to the respondent No. 2 on the post of Junior Instructor vide order dated 06.02.1989 on temporary basis for a period of six months under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1975’). Counsel submits that on completion of six months service, the services of the respondent No.2 were terminated against which the respondent No. 2 submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4451/1989 before this Court. Counsel submits that during pendency of this petition regular selection process for appointment on the same post was initiated by the Department and the respondent No. 2 participated in the regular selection process and he was given regular appointment vide order dated 30.05.1992 under Rules 20 and 22 of the Rules of 1975. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 is entitled to claim the benefits of seniority w.e.f. the date of his regular appointment i.e. 30.05.1992 but for getting the benefit of seniority respondent No. 2 approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) seeking seniority w.e.f. 06.02.1989 by way of filing an appeal. Counsel submits that Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, treating the appointment of the respondent No.2 as 06.02.1989 and accordingly, seniority has been granted to him from that date. Counsel submits that the initial appointment of the respondent No.2 was purely a temporary appointment which came to an end after completion of six months and thereafter regular appointment was given to him on 30.05.1992, so the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to claim any seniority w.e.f. 06.02.1989. Hence the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 07.12.1999.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that respondent No. 2 was given appointment on 06.02.1989 and he continued on the said post and his services were never terminated. Counsel submits that petitioner’s Department wanted to replace the petitioner from other candidate, so under that apprehension he approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 4451/1989. Counsel submits that during the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner’s Department continued the appointment of the respondent No.2 by passing the order dated 30.05.1992. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, it is clear that respondent No.2 was appointed on the post of Junior Instructor on 06.02.1989, hence he is entitled to claim seniority w.e.f. his initial date of appointment. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Ors., reported in 1999 (8) SCC 287 has held that the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard and considered th