JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed a Traffic Inspector in the Transport Department on 7-9-1960. On 8th October 1960, he was posted in the State Roadways in the same capacity. He was confirmed on that post w.e.f. 11-8-1965, upon his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner Respondent A.N. Diwan was also similarly confirmed. 2. When a separate corporation of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, all the employees of the Transport Department who were working in the Roadways Wing were placed on deputation as a temporary measure with the said Corporation w.e.f. 1-10-64. Later on, as allowed, he gave his option to return to the Transport Department but when he was relieved from the Corporation, the State Government declared him a surplus employee and sent his case to the Absorption Committee. The said Committee by its order sated 24-12-66, posted him as Moor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department which was a post equal to that of the Traffic Inspector. The petitioner contends that that Director of Transport expressed his inability to absorb the petitioner on the said post and there upon, the Absorption Committee amended its order on 26.12.66 and directed his absorption as a Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector. On 29.12.66 the Director, Transport also wrote a letter to the Absorption Committee that their is no post of Motor Vehicles Inspector vacant in the department & as such the petitioner could not be absorbed as Motor Vehicles Inspector. The petitioner was then posted as Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector on 7.3.67. The petitioner expected that as soon as the post in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector falls vacant, the petitioner would be promoted in that post. When a vacancy occurred, it was not the petitioner but it was one Laxmi Nath Sharma, respondent No. 3 who was appointed as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on ad-hoc basis on 27-10-1969. Shri Laxmi Nath Sharma is since then dead and use need not pursue the controversy in respect of him. One more vacancy fell vacant and this time also it was not given to the petitioner and instead, respondent No. 4, A.N. Diwan was appointed as Motor Vehicles Inspector on 7-2-70. The petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4. Diwan was junior to him as he was only an Officiating Traffic Inspector when he was a confirmed Traffic Inspector. One more vacancy fell vacant and this time also it was not given to the petitioner and instead, respondent No. 4, A.N. Diwan was appointed as Motor Vehicles Inspector on 7-2-70. The petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4. Diwan was junior to him as he was only an Officiating Traffic Inspector when he was a confirmed Traffic Inspector. Even according to the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963, the post of the Traffic Inspector should have been filled only by promotion from amongst the Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4 and therefore, ought to have been promoted as Traffic Inspector. 3. The petitioner, now, challenges the appointment No. 4 and also claims seniority over him. He has also prayed that the State Government be directed to create a supernumerary post in accordance with Rule 7 to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. 4. The respondent State has controverted the claim of the petitioner. They have admitted in their reply that for the purpose of absorbing surplus Government employees, the Government equated the post of the Motor Vehicles Inspector with that of the Traffic Inspector. Shri A.N. Diwan was an Inspector in the Weights and Measures Department and on being declared surplus in that department, he was absorbed as the Motor Vehicles Inspector. Since the absorption of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector had already become final, there was no scope for reconsideration of his absorption. When Mr. Diwan was declared surplus, a post of the Motor Vehicles Inspector was vacant in the Transport Department. The respondents contend, therefore, that the petitioner has no case and the petition is liable to be dismissed. However, in the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Administration, Transport Department on 8-7-77, it has been accepted that on 26-12-66, when the petitioner was absorbed as the Motor Vehicles Inspector, there were five posts of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors but against these posts, 4 persons had already been appointed temporarily in pursuance of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotions Committee. Against one post one Kanti Chandra Joshi was absorbed on 31st May, 1967. The General Administration Department Absorption Committee did not modify its order dated 24-12-66 on account of any information regarding non-availability of vacancies given by the Director, Transport. Against one post one Kanti Chandra Joshi was absorbed on 31st May, 1967. The General Administration Department Absorption Committee did not modify its order dated 24-12-66 on account of any information regarding non-availability of vacancies given by the Director, Transport. As a matter of fact the order was modified on 26.12.66 and it was 3 days after i.e. on 20-12-66 that the Director of Transport wrote to the General Administration Department that there was no vacancy in the cadre of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. It purports to say that the modification was not made on account of any misrepresentation made by the Director of Transport. 5. I have heard arguments and considered over the matter. From the facts stated in the affidavit, it is clear that on the day the petitioner was absorbed on 24.12.66, as a Motor Vehicles Inspector, five vacancies were available out of which 4 were temporarily filled & one was still a clear vacancy. The Government has not come out with any explanation as to why they modified their earlier order if it was not on account of absence of any vacancy in the Transport Department. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner was, not absorbed as the Motor Vehicles Inspector because the Director of Transport gave a false understanding that he had no vacant post. The controversy now centres around the question whether the absorption of the petitioner was against any provision of the Rajasthan Civil Services Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. Rule 7 of this rule provides that in respect of the period from 1-1-54 to the date of the publication of rules, namely 11-12-69, the various circulars of the General Administration Department mentioned in the Schedule shall apply in relation to the absorption of surplus employees as if they were part of these rules. The petitioner was absorbed in the year of 1966. Therefore, the circular that shall apply to him is that of 23.7.66. According to the para 4 of this circular the Absorption Committee had final powers to order absorption of surplus employee on an equated or any other post in any department on receipt of absorption orders. The petitioner was absorbed in the year of 1966. Therefore, the circular that shall apply to him is that of 23.7.66. According to the para 4 of this circular the Absorption Committee had final powers to order absorption of surplus employee on an equated or any other post in any department on receipt of absorption orders. According to entry in column 4 against S.N. (a) of the Table given below sub rule (1) of rule 7 of the said rules, if an employee was holding substantive appointment against a permanent post and if in the absorbing department a substantive permanent post is not vacant then a supernumerary post for providing lien thereon to the absorbed employee shall be created. Thus there appears to be a breach of these rules inasmuch as the petitioner was not absorbed on an equal post, though a vacancy was available in the Transport Department itself. 6. The learned counsel for the State urged that the petitioner's alleged wrong placement took place on 26-12-66, but he has filed the petition on 13-10-1971 and no explanation has been given for the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the true facts came to the notice of the petitioner on 7-2-70. He made a representation but when nothing was done, he approached this Court. I think this is quite a satisfactory explanation and for the reasons aforesaid, the petition deserves to be accepted. Substantial injury has been caused to the petitioner for which there is no other remedy. 7. I, therefore, accept this writ petition and direct that the order of the Absorption Committee dated 26.12.66 shall stand vacated and the petitioner shall be treated to have been absorbed against the post of the Motor Vehicles Inspector with all attendant benefits. If any difficulty arises in implementation, then, it should be resolved by creating a supernumerary post. No order in respect of A.N. Diwan needs be made because I don't find any flaw as far as his absorption is concerned. There shall however be no order, as to costs.Writ accepted. *******