JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions raise common questions relating to fixation of seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers in the Rajasthan Social Welfare Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as the Service') and as therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Recruit me it to the posts in and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Subordinate Service is regularated by Rajasthan Social Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Subordinate Service Rules') which were notified under notification dated 27th December. 1964, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 27th December, 1963. In the said Rules, as originally framed, the Service was divided into two wings. namely, Social Welfare Wing and Correctional Administration Wing. The pest of Social Welfare Officer was a Group 'A' post in the Social Welfare Wing and the post of Probation Officer was a Group 'A' post in the Correctional Administration Wing. 'I he post of social Welfare Officer was in the grade of Rs. 200-435 (Pay Scale No. 19) whereas the post of Probation Officer was in Pay Scale No. 21 in the grade of Rs. 225-425 In 1967 the Government of Rajasthan decided to reorganise the departmental set up of the Social Welfare Department in the districts in respect of Probation Officers and Social Welfare Officer and by letter dated 20th June, 1967, it was directed that with effect from 1st July, 1467 there should he a District Probation and Social Welfare Officer in pay scale No. 21 in each district. At that time there were 18 posts of Probation Officers which were temporary in nature. As a result of the aforesaid reorganisation under order dated 26th June, 1967 the Government of Rajasthan amalgamated 8 permanent posts of Social Welfare Officer with the post of Probation Officers and as a result there were 8 permanent posts of District Probation & Social Welfare Officer and 10 temporary posts of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer. By order dated 23rd September, 1967, 8 more temporary posts of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers were created with effect From 1st July, 1967. All here 6 posts of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers were in pay scale No 21. By order dated 23rd September, 1967, 8 more temporary posts of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers were created with effect From 1st July, 1967. All here 6 posts of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers were in pay scale No 21. By notification dated 31st January 1976 the Subordinate Service Rules were amended and as a result of the said amendment provisos (4) and (5) were inserted in Rule 6. Sub-rules (1) and (i) of Rule 10 were substituted and Rule 27 relating to seniority was also substituted. The Schedule to the Subordinate Service Rules was also substituted and as a result of the said substitution of the Schedule the post of District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer was placed in Group A' and the post of Social Welfare Officer was placed in Group 'B'. 3. The Rajasthan Social Welfare Service is a State Service and appointment to the said Service is made by promotion from the Subordinate Service. Recruitment to the posts in and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Social Welfare Service is regulated by the Rajasthan social Welfare Service Rules. 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the State Service Rules'). The State Service Rules were also amended by notification dated 31st January, 1976 and as a result of the said amendment proviso (4) was inserted in Rule 6 of the said Rules and provision was made for screening of persons who were appointed to the posts included in the schedule to the State Service Rules on ad hoc/officiating/temporary basis in relevant group on or before 30th June, 1963 and were working continuously as such or on higher posts in the Social Welfare Department on the date the State Service Rules came into force. 4. Roshan Lal (Petitioner in D. B Civil Writ Petition No. 86 of 1978) was appointed on the post of Probation Officer (Senior) by order dated 4th January, 1961. The said appointment of the petitioner was a temporary appointment, but was made after selection through Selection Committee appointed by the State Government. Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 in the said writ petition were appointed on the post of Social Welfare Officer during period 11th January, 1957 to 11th July, 1961. Appointment of the said respondents on the post of Social Welfare Officer was temporary in nature. Shri V. N. Gupta, respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition was appointed as Asstt. Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 in the said writ petition were appointed on the post of Social Welfare Officer during period 11th January, 1957 to 11th July, 1961. Appointment of the said respondents on the post of Social Welfare Officer was temporary in nature. Shri V. N. Gupta, respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition was appointed as Asstt. Backward Classes Welfare Officer with effect from 1st March, 1955 and he was confirmed on that post with effect from 1st October, 1956 and he was appointed as Social Welfare Officer on 16th May, 1957. After reorganisation of the departmental set up in the year 1967, by order dated 26th June, 1967 the petitioner Roshan Lal and respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer with effect from 1st July, 1917. The appointment of respondent No. 3 was in the nature of a permanent appointment, but the appointment of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 to 12 was made on ad hoc basis. By order dated 6th July, 1987, seven persons, including the petitioner Roshan Lal were appointed on the post of Probation Officer in Pay Scale No. 21, Rs. 200-435 with effect from 1st January, 1962. By another order of the same dated 6th July, 1998, 11 persons, including respondents Nos. 4 to 12, were appointed on the post of District Social Welfare Officer in Pay Scale No. 19, Rs. 200-435, with effect from 1st January, 1962. By order dated 14th April, 1971 respondents Nos. 4 to 12 were confirmed on the post of Social Welfare Officer with effect from the dates mentioned against the names of each of them. In the case of respondent No. 4 who was on top of the list the said date was 1st July, 1960 and for respondent No. 12 whose name was at the bottom of the list, the said date was 11th February, 1961. By order dated 19th July, 1976. 15 persons, including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 12, were declared to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer under Rule 6 (5) of the subordinate Service Rules By order dated 5th March, 1977, the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were confirmed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer with effect from 31st March, 1976. 3 to 12, were declared to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer under Rule 6 (5) of the subordinate Service Rules By order dated 5th March, 1977, the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were confirmed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer with effect from 31st March, 1976. By another order dated nth March 1977, seven persons' including the petitioner Roshan Lal were confirmed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer with effect from 1st April, 1976. By a third order dated 5th March, 1977 the seniority list fixing the inter se seniority of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers was issued wherein respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were placed at S. No. 1 to 10 and the petitioner Roshan Lal was placed at S. No 14 By order dated 7th April, 1977 respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 13 were promoted to the higher post of Asstt. Director (Publicity) Chief Probation Officer which was included in the State Service. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 18th April, 1976. 19th July, 1976 and 5th March, 1977 as well as order dated 7th April, 1977 the petitioner, Roshan Lal, filed this writ petition before this Court on 2nd November, 1917 wherein he has challenged the validity of orders with regard to reorganisation of the Departmental set updated 26th June, 1967 and 2nd September, 1967, the order dated 25th June, 1967 with regard to ad hoc appointment on the post of District Probation and Welfare Officer and the orders dated 18th April, 1977, 14th July, 1976 and 5th March, 1977 in so far as the said orders relate to respondents Nos 3 to 12. In this writ petition, the said petitioner has also assailed the validity of proviso (5) to Rule 6 and proviso (1) and (2) of Rule 27 (2) of the Subordinate Service Rules which were inserted by amendments made by the notification dated 31st January, 1976 on the ground that the said provisions are violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. Gregory D' Silva (petitioner in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915 of 1978) was appointed on the post of Superintendent Rescue Home on temporary basis with effect from 2nd December, 1998 He was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 200-625/-. 5. Gregory D' Silva (petitioner in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915 of 1978) was appointed on the post of Superintendent Rescue Home on temporary basis with effect from 2nd December, 1998 He was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 200-625/-. By order dated 6th July, 1964 the said petitioner was appointed on the post of Superintendent Home with effect from 1st January, 1962 in Pay Scale No. 21 of Rs. 225-485. The said order was issued on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted under rule 6 (3) of the Subordinate Service Rules In the seniority list dated 22nd September, 1971 of all persons in Group 'A' posts in Correctional Administration Wing of Social Welfare Department as on 1st January, 1962 the said petitioner was placed at S. No. 1 and is shown as holding the post of Superintendent Home. By order dated 3rd December, 1970 he was appointed on the post of Area Project Officer. Beggary Control Project, Ajmer in the Pay Scale of Rs. 275-650 with effect from 7th February, 1970. By order dated 11th August, 1971 he was promoted to the post of Chief Children officer in the Pay Scale of Rs. 375-850 and the said promotion of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidate by the D.P.C was available. The petitioner, however, continued to hold the said post till 16th May,1977 when he was reverted from the same. In the meanwhile the order sated 19th July, 1976 was issued whereby he was declared to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Social and Welfare Officer under proviso (5) to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules and by order dated 5th March, 1917 he was confirmed on the post of District Social Welfare Officer with effect from 1st April, 1976. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and 11 to 14 in this writ petitioner also impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 to 12 in the writ petition of Roshan Lal and as mentioned earlier, they were initially appointed on the post of Social Welfare Officer and out of them respondent No. 4 (who is No. 3 in the writ petition of Roshan Lal was holding the said post on permanent basis whereas the other respondents were holding the said post on temporary basis. The said respondents were appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer by order dated 26th June, 1967 with effect from 1st July, 1967. The appointment of respondent No. 4 was on permanent basis whereas the appointment of other respondents was on ad hoc basis. By order dated 6th July, 1968 respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and 11 to 14 were appointed on the post of District Social Welfare Officer with effect from 1st January, 1976 and by order dated 18th April, 1976 they were confirmed on the post of Social Welfare Officer with effect from the dates mentioned against the names of each of them. By order dated 19th July, 1976 they were also declared to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Social Welfare Officer under proviso (5) to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules. By order dated 5th March, 1977 they were confirmed on the post of District Social Welfare Officer with effect from 31st March, 1976 and in the seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 the petitioner Gregory D' Silva was placed at S. No. 11 i.e. below respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and 1 l to 14. Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were shown junior to the petitioner in the seniority list issued on 5th March, 1977 in respect of persons holding group 'A' post in the Service on 31 March, 1976. By order dated 7th April, 1977 respondents Nos. 3 to 7 and 12 were promoted to the post of Asstt. Director/Asstt. Director Publicity/Chief Probation Officer/Chief Children Officer in the State Service and respondents Nos. 8 to 10 were promoted to group 'B' post in the State Service and this petitioner was not selected and in accordance with the said order dated 7th April, 1977 be was reverted from the post of Asstt. Director which was held by him at that time. This petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') but the said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 27th October, 1476. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition on 29th November, 1978 wherein he has challenged the order of Tribunal dated 27th October, 1978 as well as the orders which have been challenged in the writ petition of Roshan Lal. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition on 29th November, 1978 wherein he has challenged the order of Tribunal dated 27th October, 1978 as well as the orders which have been challenged in the writ petition of Roshan Lal. This petitioner has also challenged the validity of proviso (5) to rule 6 and provisos (1) and (2) of Rule 27(2) of the Subordinate Service Rules. 6. The writ petitions have been contested by the State which has filed its reply in both the writ petitions. 7. It may be stated that during the course of the arguments Shri G. S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions has confined his challenge to the order dated 18th April, 1974, whereby the respondents who were initially appointed as Social Welfare Officer, were confirmed on the post of Social Welfare Officer from earlier dates ranging from 1st July, 1960 to 11th February, 1961 and the orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to the confirmation of both the petitioners as well as respondents referred to above on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer and the seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers. As regards the validity of the Rules, Shri Singhvi has confined his challenge to provisos (1) and (2) of Rule 27(2) of the Subordinate Service Rules. 8. Before we deal with the contentions urged by Shri Singhvi, we may refer to the preliminary objection that has been raised by the learned Addl. Government Advocate with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. In our view ta. said contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate cannot be accepted because apart from the order dated 15th April, 1974 the other orders which have been challenged by the petitioners were passed in March, 1977 and Roshan Lal had filed the writ petition before this Court on 2nd November 1977. Gregory Dilva first approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal on 6th June, 1977 and soon after his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17th October, 1978 he filed the writ petition in this Court on 29th November, 1978. Gregory Dilva first approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal on 6th June, 1977 and soon after his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17th October, 1978 he filed the writ petition in this Court on 29th November, 1978. With regard to the order dated 18th April, 1974 it may be stated that at the time when the said order was issued it was not directly affecting the petitions is because it only related to confirmation of the respondents referred to above on the post of Social Welfare Officers and the petitioners were affected by the said order only by virtue of the seniority list which was issued on 5th March, 1977 wherein, on account of the order dated 18th April, 1974, the said respondents have been placed senior to the petitioners in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of lashes and are not entailed to seek a relief from this Court. The preliminary objection raised by the Addl. Government Advocate is, therefore, rejected. 9. We will now deal with the submissions of Shri Singhvi on merits. 10. We will first take up the question as to validity of the order dated 18th April, 1974 whereby the respondents referred to above who were initially appointed as Social Welfare Officers were confirmed on the said post of Social Welfare Officer with effect from the dates ranging from 1st July, 1960 to 11th February, 1961. On the dates with effect from which the said respondents were confirmed on the post of Social Welfare Officer the Subordinate Service Rules were not applicable because Subordinate Service Rules came into force on 27th December, 1963. At that time i.e. during the period from 1st July, 1960 to 11th February, 1961 appointment to the post in subordinate services were governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other service conditions) Rules, 1960 thereinafter referred to as `the 1960 Rules') which were notified by notification dated 19th April, 1960. Confirmation of all the respondents Social Welfare Officers has been made with effect from the dates subsequent to 1st April, 1960. Confirmation of all the respondents Social Welfare Officers has been made with effect from the dates subsequent to 1st April, 1960. Under the 1960 Rules recruitment to the post in the Subordinate Service was governed by Rule 7 which prescribed the sources of recruitment, One of the sources of recruitment, as laid down in the sail Rule, was by the selection through the agency of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to all `the Commission') in respect of posts failing within their purview by interview or written examination followed by a personality and viva voice test, if necessary, as may he decided by the Government in consultation with the Commission. It has been submitted by Shri Singhvi that the post of Social Welfare Officer, on which respondents were confirmed under order dated 18th April, 1974, was a post falling within the purview of the Commission in view of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 1951 and substantive appointment on the post of Social Welfare Officer could only be made in consultation with the Commission and this was not done and therefore the order dated 18th April, 1974 with regard to confirmation of the respondents the post of Social Welfare Officer must be held to be had. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has not been able to show that the post of Social Welfare Officer on which confirmation was made by the order dated 18th April, 1971 did not fall within the purview of the commissioner dates with effect from which confirmations were made on the post of Social Welfare Officer under the said order dated 18th April, 1974 and, therefore, it must be held that substantive appointment on the post of Social Welfare Officer could not be made without consultation with the Commission. It is not the case of the State that the Commission was consulted before passing of the order dated 18th April, 1974. It must, therefore, be held that the order dated 18th April, 1974 which by the respondents who were initially appointed as Social Welfare Officers, were confirmed on the post of Social Welfare Officer with effect from the dates ranging from 1st July, 1960 to 11th February, 1961 cannot be upheld and must be quashed. 11. If order dated 18th April, 1974 is held to be bad, then the orders that remain are those dated 6th July, 1968. 11. If order dated 18th April, 1974 is held to be bad, then the orders that remain are those dated 6th July, 1968. By one of those orders dated 6th July, 1968, petitioner Roshan Lal was appointed on the post of Probation Officer and petitioner Gregory D'Silva was appointed on the post of Superintendent Rescue Home in the pay scale No. 21, Rs. 2,25, 485. They were both so appointed with effect from 1st January, 1962. The said order was issued on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted under rule 6 (3) of the Subordinate Service Rules. By another order dated 6th July, 1968, 11 persons, including the respondents referred to above were appointed on the permanent post of Social Welfare Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 200-435 with effect from 1st January, 1962. This order was also passed on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted under rule 6(i) of the Subordinate Service Rules. In rule 6(3) of the Subordinate Service Rules, as it stood at the relevant time, a provision was made for screening by a committee of persons who had continuously held the post in the relevant groups included in the Service on ad hoc/officiating/temporary capacities for a period of not less than six months on 1st January, 1962 for their suitability for appointment to the post held in the above capacities on 1st January, 1962 or on any other equivalent post or lower posts. As a result of the said orders dated 6th July, 1968 the petitioners Roshan Lal and Gregory D'Silva should be treated to have been substantively appointed to the posts of Probation Officer and Superintendent Home respectively which posts were included in the Correctional Administration Wing Group 'A', in the Schedule to the Subordinate Service Rules and the respondents referred to above should be treated to have been appointed substantively on the post of Social Welfare Officer falling in the Social Welfare Wing Group 'A', in the Schedule to Subordinate Services Rules. 12. At this stage it may be stated that prior to the promulgation of the Subordinate Service Rules the post of Social Welfare Officer was treated as lower to that of the Probation Officer (senior) because the post of Social Welfare Officer was in Pay scale No. 19 i.e. Rs. 12. At this stage it may be stated that prior to the promulgation of the Subordinate Service Rules the post of Social Welfare Officer was treated as lower to that of the Probation Officer (senior) because the post of Social Welfare Officer was in Pay scale No. 19 i.e. Rs. 200-435 whereas the post of Probation Officer (senior) was in pay scale No. 21 i.e. Rs. 225-435. In the reply filed on behalf of the State in Roshan Lal's case it has been admitted that the post of Social Welfare Officer was lower post than the post of Probation Officer (senior). In the reply filed on behalf of the state in Gregory D'Silva's case it has been admitted that prior to coming in to force of the subordinate service rules and even upto 30th June, 1967 the post of District Probation Officer was considered to be higher post in comparison to the post of District Social Welfare Officer. In the said reply it has also been admitted that Sohanlal, Pyarelal and Jagdish were promoted from the post of Social Welfare Officer to the post of District Probation Officer in the year 1961. In view of the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of the State in the writ petitions it must be held that on 30th June, 1967 the petitioners were substantively holding the post of Probation Officer/Superintendent Home and the respondents referred to above were holding the lower post of Social Welfare Officer. With effect from 1st July, 1967, there was an amalgamation of some posts of Social Welfare Officer with the post of Probation Officer and creation of the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer. The said post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer was also in Pay Scale No. 21 and was therefore equivalent to the post of Probation Officer held by the petitioners. As a result of the aforesaid amalgamation the respondents, who were employed as Social Welfare Officers on 30th June, 1967. were appointed on the higher post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer in Pay Scale No. 21. In so far as the petitioner Roshan Lal is concerned, there was only a change of designation from Probation Officer to District Probation and Social Welfare Officer and there was no change of status because the post of Probation Officer and District Probation and Social Welfare Officer were in the same pay scale. In so far as the petitioner Roshan Lal is concerned, there was only a change of designation from Probation Officer to District Probation and Social Welfare Officer and there was no change of status because the post of Probation Officer and District Probation and Social Welfare Officer were in the same pay scale. In this context it may he stated that the aforesaid amalgamation of certain posts of Social Welfare Officer and the creation of the poet of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer in 1967 was not contemplated by the Subordinate Service Rules as they stood at that time because the said Rules made provision for two separate posts viz., the post of Probation Officer in the Correctional Administration conveying and the post of Social Welfare Officer in the Social Welfare Wing. Proviso (5) to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules, which was inserted by the amendments introduced vide notification dated 31st January, 1976 gave statutory recognition to the aforesaid creation of the past of District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer with effect from 1st July, 1967 In the said proviso it is laid down that persons Rho acre working on 30th June, 1967 en the post of District Social Welfare Officers and its equivalent to Social Welfare Wing and Probation Officers and its equivalent in Correctional Administration Wing and were appointed on the said post in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules except in an ad hoc or urgent temporary basis and were appointed on the post of District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer on 1st July, 1967 and thereafter shall he deemed to have been appointed to the post of District Probation- Social Welfare Officer regularly. In view of the aforesaid provision contained in proviso (5) to Rule 6 the order dated 19th July, 1976 was issued whereby both the petitioners as well as respondents referred to above mere declared to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer under proviso (5) to Rule 6 of Subordinate Service Rules. 13. We may now come to the two orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to confirmation on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer. By one of these orders the respondents Nos. 13. We may now come to the two orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to confirmation on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer. By one of these orders the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 in Roshan Lal's writ petition, who were earlier employed as Social Welfare Officer's, were confirmed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers with effect from 31st March, 1976 and by another order of the same date seven persons including both the petitioners in these writ petitions, were confirmed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers with effect from 1st April, 1976 We have been unable to appreciate the need for passing these orders for confirmation and for prescribing different dates for confirmation for the petitioners and the respondents who were earlier working as Social Welfare Officers. We are of the view that in view of the order dated 19th July, 1976 whereby the petitioners as well as the respondents who bad been appointed as District Probation and Social Welfare Officers on 1st July, 1967 were treated to have been regularly appointed on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer The said order of 19th July, 1976 was passed in accordance with the proviso (5) to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules and it implies that the appointment of the petitioners and the respondents who were earlier working as Social Welfare Officers on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer on 1st July, 1967 was a regular appointment. As noticed earlier by orders dated 6th July, 1968 all of them had been substantively appointed on the post of Probation Officer/Superintendent Howe and Social Welfare Officers with effect from 1st January, 1962. Therefore there was no question of passing and further order of confirmation on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer and for providing different dates of confirmation for the petitioners and the respondents on the said post. The orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to confirmation on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers cannot, therefore, be upheld and must be set aside. 14. The orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to confirmation on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers cannot, therefore, be upheld and must be set aside. 14. Now we are left with the seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 fixing the inter se seniority in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers wherein the petitioners have been placed junior to the respondents who were employed as Social Welfare Officers. The said order has been issued in pursuance of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rile 27 of the Subordinate Service Rules which provides as under : (2) That the seniority of the persons referred to in provision (5) of rule 6 shall be determined in the following manner by the Government:- (i) First of all two separate seniority lists will be prepared for the persons in the two separate wings working on 30 6.1967 in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. In each wing seniority of temporary and permanent persons as on 30.6.1967 will be prepared separately. (ii) For preparing interlaced seniority on 1.7.1967 the permanent Probation Officers and equivalent shall rank senior to the permanent District Social Welfare Officers and equivalent. Thereafter the permanent District Social Welfare Officers and equivalent shall rank next senior to the temporary Probation Officers and equivalent. (iii) Thereafter the temporary Probation Officers and equivalent shall rank senior to the temporary District Social Welfare Officers and s equivalent. The said sub-rule prescribes the mode of fixation of inter se seniority of persons covered by proviso (5) to Rule 6. It provides for preparation of two separate seniority lists for the persons who were working in the two wings of the Social Welfare Department on 30th June, 1967 and for fixation of seniority of temporary and permanent persons in each wing separately. For the purpose of interlaced seniority, as on 1st July, 1967, a permanent Probation Officer and equivalent has to be placed senior to permanent District Social Welfare Officer and equivalent and a permanent District Social Welfare Officer and equivalent is to be placed senior to a temporary Probation Officer and equivalent, and amongst the temporary Probation Officer and equivalent and temporary Social Welfare Officers and equivalent, temporary Probation Officers and equivalent shall rank senior to temporary District Welfare Officers and equivalent. Shri Singhvi has assailed the validity of the said provisions on the ground that the said rule makes an arbitrary distinction between a person holding a post temporarily and a person holding the post permanently and moreover it gives preference in the matter of seniority to a permanent Social Welfare Officer over a temporary Probation Officer even though the posts of Probation Officer and District Social Welfare Officer were not equivalent posts and the post of Probation Officer was a post higher than that of the District Social Welfare Officer upto 30th June, 1967. The submission of Shri Singhvi is that the principle of seniority as laid down in the aforesaid rule suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution In our opinion the aforesaid contention of Shri Singhvi must be accepted. The principle for fixation of seniority as contained in the aforesaid provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 makes a distinction between a person holding a post permanently and a person holding a post temporarily on 30th June, 1967 although under Rule 4 of the Sub-ordinate Service Rules the Subordinate Service consists of permanent as well as temporary posts. 15. In (I) Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 41 . the Supreme Court was dealing with a Service which included both permanent as well as temporary post and it was held that for the purpose of fixation of inter se seniority substantive appointment to a post in the service in a temporary capacity could he validly taken into consideration. In the said case it his been observed as under: "We must emphasise that while temporary and permanent posts have great relevancy in regard to the career of Government servants, keeping posts temporary for long, some times by annual renewals for several years and denying the claims of the incumbents on the score that their posts are temporary makes no sense and strikes us as arbitrary, especially when both temporary and permanent appointments are functionally identified if, in the normal course a post is temporary in the real sense and the appointee knows that his tenure cannot exceed the post in longevity, there cannot be anything unfair or capricious in clothing him with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for certain departmental or like purposes declared temporary, but it is within the kin of both the Government and the appointee that the temporary posts are virtually long-lived It is irrational to reject the claim of the 'temporary' appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post." 16. Similarly in P. D. Aggrawal and others v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1987 SC 1676 , the Supreme Court has held that the classification made between temporary Assistant Engineers, though working for a considerable period of time but not appointed against permanent vacancies, and direct recruits appointed on the basis of the examination against permanent vacancies on probation, was arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable infringing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because all the Assistant Engineers, whether appointed on a temporary post of the cadre or on the permanent post in the cadre, were recruited directly from graduates in Civil Engineering. 17. In the present cases the petitioners were appointed directly by selection by a Committee appointed by the State Government and the respondents Social Welfare Officers were also appointed directly. It was only a matter of accident that the post of Probation Officers on which the petitioners were appointed were temporary posts whereas some of the posts of Social Welfare Officers on which the respondents were appointed were permanent posts. But there was no difference in the manner of making their appointments. Moreover, in view of the orders dated 6th July, 1968, at the time of their appointment on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officer on 1st July, 1967 all of them were holding substantive appointment. The petitioners were holding the post of Probation Officer substantively with effect from 1st January, 1962 and the respondents Social Welfare Officers were holding the post of Social Welfare Officers with effect from 1st January, 1962. In these circumstances there appears to be no plausible reason why a distinction should be made between them on the basis as to whether they were holding a permanent or a temporary post, Moreover, the post of Social Welfare Officer that was held by the respondents prior to 1st July, 1967 was not a post equivalent to the post of Probation Officer, but was a lower post, inasmuch as the post of Social Welfare Officer was placed in Pay Scale No. 19 ( Rs. 200-415) whereas the post of Probation Officer was in Pay Scale No. 21 ( Rs. 225-485) In sub-rule (8) of Rule 27 the expression "equivalent post" has been defined for the purpose of the said sub-rule to mean a post in identical scale of pay. In the said sub-rule it has been prescribed that holders of post of Publicity Officer/ Research Officer/Area Project Officer, being higher in pay scale shall rank senior to thus holding other posts in Group 'A'. Similarly it can be said that the Probation Officers though holding a temporary post, could not be equated with the District Social Welfare Officers holding a permanent post since the said post was a lower post. Sub-rule (2) of rule 27 which prescribed the principles for fixation of seniority trews Social Welfare Officers and Probation Officers on equal basis and thereby confers permanent Social Welfare Officers seniority over temporary Probation Officers. As a result of the said rule persons who were unequals have been treated equally. The principles for fixation of seniority as laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of the Subordinate Service Rules, therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and must be held to be violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 fixing the inter se seniority in the cadre of District Probation & Social Welfare Officers has been prepared on the basis of the aforesaid principles laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of the Subordinate Service Rules and the same cannot be, therefore, upheld and must be set aside and the State Government is directed to reconsider the matter and prepare a fresh seniority list after prescribing the proper principles for fixation of inter se seniority of persons referred to in proviso (5) to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules. This disposes of the main point arising for consideration in both the writ petitions. 18. In Gregory D' Silva's petition there is an additional point which requires examination. This disposes of the main point arising for consideration in both the writ petitions. 18. In Gregory D' Silva's petition there is an additional point which requires examination. Under proviso (4) to rule 6 of the State Service Rules, which was inserted by amendments introduced by notification dated 31st June, 1976, it is prescribed as under : "4) That the persons not covered tinder proviso (1) to rule 6 and having no lien on any post in the Service or in the Rajasthan Social Welfare Subordinate Service, who were appointed to the posts included in the Schedule in ad hoc/officiating/temporary basis in the relevant group on or before 20.6.1973 and were working continuously as such or on higher posts in the Social Welfare Department or would have worked but for their appointment on any other post on the date these Rules come into force shall be screened by a Committee referred to in rule 24. for adjudging their suitability on the posts held provided that they possess the academic qualifications prescribed in these Rules either for direct recruitment or promotion or the prescribed qualifications on the basis of which the persons were selected for ad hoc/officiating/temporary appointments : Provided that a person appointed on ad hoc basis shall not be entitled to screening for a post higher than to which he was initially appointed, if a person senior to him on lower post was either not given such ad hoc appointment except for unfitness or non-selection or is not entitled to screening under this rule Seniority of ad hoc/officiating/temporary employees for the purpose of this proviso unless pre-determine' under any Rules or orders, shall be determined according to length of continuous service on a post." 19. The case of the said petitioner is that he was entitled to be screened under the said provision. On behalf of the State it was contended before the Tribunal that the said petitioner was not entitled to be considered for screening because he had been initially appointed on the post of Superintendent Rescue Home which is encadered in the Subordinate Service and later on his, appointment was regularised by screening under the Subordinate Service Rules. On behalf of the State it was contended before the Tribunal that the said petitioner was not entitled to be considered for screening because he had been initially appointed on the post of Superintendent Rescue Home which is encadered in the Subordinate Service and later on his, appointment was regularised by screening under the Subordinate Service Rules. The Tribunal did not accept the said contention of the State and held that the said petitioner was confirmed in the Subordinate Service on 1st April, 1976 which means that he did not have a lien therein prior to 1st April, 1976 and he was holding the post of Chief Children Officer falling in Group 'B' of the Schedule to the State Service Rules on an ad hoc basis and so he was not having a on any post in the State Service either. The Tribunal, however, held that in view of the proviso to the said clause, the said petitioner could not be screened because persons shown senior to him were confirmed on the past held by them on dates earlier than the introduction of amended rule (4) and trey had acquired a lien in the Subordinate Service and they were not entitled to be screened under proviso (4) to Rule 6 of the State Service Rules. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the seniority list dated 5th March, 1977. Since the said seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 is being held to be bad by this Court, the reason given by the Tribunal for holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be screened under Rule 6 (4) of the State Service Rules does not survive and the said petitioner would be entitled to be screened under Rule 6 (4) of the State Service Rules in the event of his seniority in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers being reviewed vis-a-vis the respondents. If as a result of such screening he is selected, he should be appointed on the post of Chief Children Officer held by him under Rule 6 (4) of State Service Rules on 20th June, 1973. 20. If as a result of such screening he is selected, he should be appointed on the post of Chief Children Officer held by him under Rule 6 (4) of State Service Rules on 20th June, 1973. 20. In the result both the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 18th April, 1974 with regard to confirmation of the respondents on the post of Social Welfare Officer, the orders dated 5th March, 1977 with regard to confirmation of the petitioners and the respondents who were working as Social Welfare Officers on the post of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers and the seniority list dated 5th March, 1977 fixing the inter se seniority in the cadre of District Probation and Social Welfare Officers are quashed. The principles for fixation of seniority as laid down in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of the Subordinate Service Rules are also quashed as being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State Government is directed to prepare a fresh seniority list fixing the inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents who were working as Social Welfare Officers on 30th June, 1967 after prescribing the proper principles for fixation of inter se seniority of persons referred to in proviso to Rule 6 of the Subordinate Service Rules. In Civil Writ petition No. 915/78 the order dated 27th October, 1976 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed that the said petitioner should be screened under Rule 6 (4) or the State Service Rules and of his seniority as revised vis-a-vis the respondents who were working as Social Welfare Officers and if as a result of such screening he is selected he should be appointed on the post of Chief Children Officer held by him on 30th June, 1971 and he would also be entitled to the consequential benefits accruing to him as a result of such appointment. The fresh seniority list fixing the inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents who were working as Social Welfare Officers should be issued within a period of three months and the screening of the petitioner Gregory D'Silva under Rule 6 (4) of the State Service Rules in accordance with the directions mentioned above should be done within two months of the issuance of the seniority list. The parties are left to bear their own costs in these writ petitions.Petition Allowed. *******