JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to quash the letter dated 27th April, 1988 (Ex. 4), by which his promotion as Junior Accountant was ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed that he be directed to be appointed as Junior Accountant as a direct recruit with effect from the date the other selected Junior accountant were appointed as per merit. 2. Briefly stated the fact's of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of LDC for Jaipur Zone in pursuance of the advertisement No. 5 of 1st June, 1983, for regular appointment as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules. 1957 (for short, the Rules). The petitioner was placed in merit at No. 74, in the reserve list and one Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, who too was selected along with the petitioner, was placed in the merit list at No. 79, Shri Radhey sham Sharma was allotted for appointment in the office of the Director, Technical Education. whereas the petitioner was allotted to the office of the Principal, Flying School and later on, he was allotted in the office of the Director. Environment, Jaipur. Shri Radhey Sbyam Sharma was confirmed as LDC vide order dated 23rd May, 1988, whereas the petitioner who stood higher in the merit, in the reserve list, was not confirmed, though he was entitled to be confirmed. While the petitioner was so working as LDC, applications were invited for the post of Accountants/Junior Accountants/Tehsil-Revenue Accountants against the direct recruits, by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. As per the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules. 1963 (for short, the Rules of 1963), the petitioner was eligible for direct recruitment for the post of Junior Accountant Hence, in pursuance of the advertisement he applied for the post of Junior Accountant. His application was sent through proper channel. Initially, 500 posts of Junior Accountants were advertised, but later on the posts were increased to 750. The petitioner appeared in the examination. The petitioner was declared successful in the examination provisionally by letter dated 27th April, 1988, by which the result of the petitioner's examination was declared. He was directed to send a certificate that he is substantive in the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner appeared in the examination. The petitioner was declared successful in the examination provisionally by letter dated 27th April, 1988, by which the result of the petitioner's examination was declared. He was directed to send a certificate that he is substantive in the Government of Rajasthan. It was also mentioned in the letter, dated 27th April, 1988, that his provisional selection will be cancelled if be fails to submit the certificate upon 2nd May, 1989. From the result. it is evident that the petitioner stands in merit at Sr. No. 620. The petitioner approached respondent No. 1 to give him the requisite certificate. The petitioner was given a different certificate on 5th May, 1988. During this period, the petitioner made a representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission praying that since the matter is pending, hence his provisional appointment as Junior Accountant may not be cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that his provisional appointment as Junior Accountant has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner was not holding the post in the Government substantively The contention of the petitioner is that his appointment was substantive and cancellation of appointment of the petitioner, as aforesaid, was totally illegal. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition contending that the petitioner was not substantively appointed as LDC in the department of the respondents. Therefore, he was not entitled to get the certificate to the effect that he is a substantive employee and, consequently, he was not appointed. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th April, 1988 (Ex. 4) on various grounds. However, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of by resolving the main dispute as to whether the appointment of the petitioner on the post of LDC was substantive or not? 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties from the undisputed facts on record, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as LDC through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after due process of selection and he stood in the merit at Sr. No. 74, in the reserve list. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties from the undisputed facts on record, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as LDC through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after due process of selection and he stood in the merit at Sr. No. 74, in the reserve list. The petitioner joined as LDC on 22nd February, 1996 and completed two years' service on 22nd February, 1988 satisfactorily. As per the Rules, every person appointed to the service by direct recruitment is to be placed on probation for a period of two years and after completion of probationary period be is entitled to be confirmed on his appointment. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, who was appointed, was confirmed vide order dated 23rd May, 1988; but the petitioner was not confirmed on the ground that substantive posts were not available in the Department in which the petitioner was working. We are of the opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as LDC through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after due process of selection and he continued on the post such an appointment can only be described as substantive appointment. Even if the petitioner was appointed as temporary, his appointment was made after due process of selection and the post of LDC was available in the cadre. From the scheme of the Rules, it may be inferred that substantive vacancy includes both temporary as well as permanent vacancy; undoubtedly, such a vacancy mut be in the cadre. Even if the petitioner was appointed as temporary, his appointment was made after due process of selection and the post of LDC was available in the cadre. From the scheme of the Rules, it may be inferred that substantive vacancy includes both temporary as well as permanent vacancy; undoubtedly, such a vacancy mut be in the cadre. The Supreme Court in G.C. Gupta v. N.K. Pandey (AIR 1988 SC 268) has observed as follows: "it is pertinent to mention that for an appointment in order to be an appointment in a substantive capacity it is not necessary that the appointment should be made to a temporary post of long duration in a department having both permanent and temporary post of a quasi-permanent nature there is nothing to distinguish the quality of service as bet- ween the two." In the said judgment, it was argued that merely because a Government servant has been appointed on a temporary post after fulfilment of all the requirement of the rules for regular appointment, including consultation with the Public Service Commission, he cannot be said to be appointed substantively in the temporary post of the cadre and he cannot be said to be treated to be a member of the service on the mere plea that he has not been appointed against permanent post on probation. But the Supreme Court said that such an argument is not tenable and reference was made to the case of Baleshwar Das v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1981 SC 41 ) , wherein it has been observed as under: "We see no reason to hold that when engineers are appointed to temporary posts but after fulfilment of all the tests for regular appointments, including consultation wish the Public Service Commission, they are not appointments in a substantive capacity." 6. In a recent DB Judgment of this Court in Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries and Stenographers' Association v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2705/1988, decided on 12th December, 1988) , this Court had the occasion to consider as to when an employee should be treated as holding post in a substantive capacity and it was held that when a person is appointed after due selection even on temporary post, then it will be taken that he is holding the post in substantive capacity. 7. 7. In this view of the matter and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was appointed after due process of selection, we are of the opinion that his appointment on the post was substantive and, thus, he was entitled to be appointed on the post of Junior Accountant and,in the same manner, in which Radhey Sbyam Sharma and other persons who were duly selected and were appointed. 8. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and quash the order, dated 27th April, 1988 (Ex. 4), by which the petitioner's appointment as Junior Accountant was ordered to be cancelled and we hereby direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Accountant after holding that his appointment as LDC was substantive from the date when the other selected Junior Accountants were appointed as per merit. Appointment order, as per rules, be issued within one month of passing of this order. The petitioner shall be further entitled to all consequential benefits. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******