Honble MADAN, J. –Petitioner, who is in service of the department of lrrigation Jaipur Zone Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on the post of Munshi Gr. l since 1.11.1977 in pay scale No. 6 of 950-1680 as prescribed for the Work-charged employees who are governed by the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964, has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that notwithstanding his position as Senior Munshi Grade-1 as per his seniority position as reflected from seniority list dated 18.4.1991 (Vide Annexure-11) after having been declared permanent Store Munshi Grade-1 in accordance with Work charge Rules, 1964, his candidature for the change of cadre from Store Munshis to that L.D.C.s has been ignored by the respondents in contravention of the Rajasthan Subordinate Staff Ru-les, 1957 (for short ``the Rules of 1957).

(2). The case of the petitioner is that after his initial appointment he was made semi permanent work charged employee by order dated 1.5.1980 and then was posted at Som Kamble Amba Project, Dam-Sub-Division Dungarpur, but the respondents have been taking work from him on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the recruitment cell because he did also possess the requisite academic qualification. It is also his case that pay scale of 950-1680 prescribed for Munshi Gr.l work charged imployees is equal to the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk and therefore, Devi Singh, respondent No. 5 who was initially appointed as work charged employee in May, 1982 as Munshi Gr. II in pay scale of 800-1250 (scale No.3) in the office of the Additional Chief Engineer of lrrigation, Jaipur Zone, was appointed by order dated 1.11.1990 (Annex.5) on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pay scale of 950-1680 at basic pay of Rs. 950/-by the department -respondents, whereas he was not appointed as Lower Division Clerk despite the fact that he was senior to Devi Singh. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment order dated 1.11.1990 (Annexure 5) of respondent No. 5 declaring it null & void and against that post, the petitioner has claimed his appointment as LDC w.e.f. 1.11.1990 alongwith seniority. The contention of the petitioner is that his candidature was ignored by the respondents in making selection and giving appointment to respondent No. 5 and two others namely; Madan Lal Choudhary and Mahaveer Singh Poonia who were both appointed as L.D.Cs vide (Annexure-10) dated 2.7.1991.

(3). In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred that by order dated 18.12.90 (Ann.4) he was declared as surplus. In reply to this para, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has made false averments in para 5 of his writ petition. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application for deletion of this para 5 which was allowed by order of this Court on 14.9.93.

(4). The petitioner placed reliance on the Notification dated 18.12.1989 whereby the amendment has been made in the Engineering Subordinate Services Rules in the Schedule by adding to Column No. 3 to Rule 6 as under-

``that persons employed on work-charged basis in Public Works Department/ lrrigation `Indira Gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira

Gandhi Nahar Board Command Area Development Department), Ayurved Department and who have put in atleast two years continuous service as on 1.4.88 and such other employees who have been working on lower posts in the department and possess the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to any of the post of Driver, Tra-cer, Foremen, Junior Draftsman, Laboratory Assistant, Lavoratory Attendant etc. may be considered once only for appointment on these posts against direct recruitment quota alongwith fresh names received from open market candidates and upto 50% vacant posts may be filed out of the above categories of work-charged employee and other employees in relaxation of age limit prescribed in these rules:

Provided they are otherwise found suitable by the selection committee-

The concerned appointing authority while inviting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document