Honble YADAV, J–The present writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of proviso (3) added to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-I) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1955) which are framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in so far as it provides for fixing the seniority of the petitioner after the direct recruits of the year 1988. The aforesaid proviso (3) added to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 is reproduced below for ready reference:

``(3) that the persons who have continuously held the post of Inspectors Gr.II in an adhoc of urgent temporary basis for a period of not less than 5 years as on 1.1.1985 and still holding the post on the date of publication of the amendment in the Rajasthan gazette shall be screened by a Committee consisting of the Registrar, the Dy. Secre- tary to the Govt., Co-operative Department, the Dy. Secretary to Govt. Department of Personnel, and the Deputy Registrar (Admn.) for adjudging their suitability for the post held by them and be appointed to the said post on regular basis in the service, if they possess the qualification prescribed in the rules for direct recruitment. The inter se seniority of these persons shall be determined by the Screening Committee on the basis of length of Service and the seniority of the Inspectors so screened will be assigned below the persons appointed to the post of Co-operative Inspector, Gr. II by direct recruitment through the Commission in the year, 1988.

The aforesaid amended proviso (3) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 5.9.91 and was made enforceable w.e.f. 22.7.91.

(2). The brief facts necessary for effective adjudication of the present writ petition which emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector (Executive) by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 18.5.62 (Ann.1) on temporary basis for a period of 6 months. In compliance of the aforesaid order he joined his duties on 28.5.1962. However, the services of the petitioner were continued after the expiry of the period of 6 months till further orders by the Registrar vide order dated 18.12.62 (Ann.2). The petitioner thereafter continued to serve the Co-operative Department in the same capacity.

(3). It is revealed from perusal of the record that vide order dated 22.7.92 (Annex.3) the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis after screening under proviso (3) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955. The aforesaid order dated 22.7.92 (Annex.3) provides that the persons appointed by the said order shall be junior to the persons appointed after being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer in the year 1988 by way of direct recruitment. Thereafter a provisional seniority list of the Inspectors of the Co-operative Department was published where the name of the petitioner was not shown. However, the said seniority list was cancelled by another seniority list dated 23.4.92 (Annex.4). It is pertinent to mention here that in the earlier seniority list published on 1.10.76 the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 679 which is not placed on record.

(4). On 22.7.97 learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that learned counsel for the respondents Shri Nijuddin Khan has filed reply in this case but reply had not been annexed. On the aforesaid statement at the Bar, the Court directed the office to trace and place the reply on record. The case was directed to be listed in future showing the name of Shri Nijuddin Khan. On the next date of hearing it was reported by office that no reply in this case has been filed. Later on Mr. A.L. Dave appeared as penal lawyer on behalf of respondents. Mr. Dave stated today that respondents do not propose to file reply as vires of proviso (3) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 is challenged in the present petition which involves pure question of law.

(5). I have hear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document