JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to show the date of appointment of the petitioners to be September 9, 1952 in the seniority list, 1986 (Annex. P/2). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was substantively appointed as an Assistant Master by the Inspector of Schools, Jodhpur by his order dated 8.9.1952 (Annex.-1). He joined the duty on 9.9.52 and was confirmed from this date. On coming into force of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'), the primary schools which were under the control of the Inspectors of Schools came under the purview of this Act. The post of Assistant Master was redesignated as Teacher Grade III. By order dated July 29, 1968, the petitioner was transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Jaitran (Pali) to Panchayat Samiti, Bilara (Jodhpur) and in pursuance thereof, he joined duty in the Panchayat Samiti, Bilara on August 4, 1968. In year 1986, the Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur issued a seniority list showing his name at Serial No. 25 and his date of substantive appointment to be 4.8.1968 instead of 9.9.1952 and also putting a cross-mark (x) against his name. He submitted his representation (Annex. 3) against it but with no avail. However, he was told that his substantive appointment would be treated with effect from the day he joined Panchayat Samiti, Bilara (Jodhpur) and not 9.9.1952. 3. In reply, it has been stated by the respondents that petitioner himself sought his transfer from Panchayat Samiti, Jeaitaran (Pali) to Panchayat Samiti, Bilara (Jodhpur) in the year 1968, according to the provisions of Rule 29(4), Rajasthan Samiti and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules') his substantive appointment has rightly been shown with effect from 4.8.1968 in the seniority list and this position has further been clarified by the State Government by issuing Circular No. F37(5) VDP/Adm-3/80/2521 dated 20.6.1984 (Annex-R/4). 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Rule 29(4) of the Rules, as existed in the year 1968, the petitioner's seniority was to be determined on the basis of the continuous length of his substantive appointment should have been shown as 9.9.1952 and not 4.8.1968 (the date on which he took over charge in the Panchayat Samiti, Bilara). He further contended that this sub-rule was amended appointment should have been shown as 9.9.1952 and not 4.8.1968 (the date on which he took over charge in the Panchayat Samiti, Bilara). He further contended that this sub-rule was amended in the year 1980 and the amendment had not affected either his seniority or the date of substantive appointment as this amendment was not with retrospective effect. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh, Panchayat Samiti, Bilara (intervener) contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner concealed the fact of his request made for his transfer from Panchayat Samiti, Jairan to Panchayat Samiti, Bilara in the year 1968. Secondly, the list Annex. 2 is not a final seniority list and the writ petition is pre-mature. They also contended that the provisions of amended rule 29(4) and the said Circular Annex. R/1 would apply to the case of the petitioner also and his date of substantive appointment has rightly been shown to be August 4, 1968 in the seniority list Annex. 2. 6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed on the substantive post of Assistant Master on September 9, 1952, he was confirmed w.e.f. this date, the post of Assistant Master was redesignated as Teacher Grade III on coming into force of the Act, he was transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Jairan to Panchayat Samiti, Bilara by order of July 29, 1968 and he joined duty on August 4, 1968 in the Panchayat Samiti, Bilara. Prior to the amendment, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 29 of the Rules ran as under : "(4) Seniority of an employee so transferred will be determined ad hoc by the Committee of the district to which he is transferred on the basis of the continuous length of the substantive Service on an analogous post." 7. This sub-rule was substituted by notification No. F4/LJ/Pt./R/9/80/72 dated 22.4.1980. This sub-rule was substituted by notification No. F4/LJ/Pt./R/9/80/72 dated 22.4.1980. The substituted sub-rule (4) of rule 29 of the rules runs as under : "(4) Seniority of an employee transferred outside the district the State Government under sub-section (9-A) of Section 86 of the Act or by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad on recommendation of the Commission under sub-rule (2) of this rule, shall be determined ad hoc as under by the Committee of the District to which he is transferred:- (i) If the transfer is made on the request of the employee his seniority shall be fixed at the bottom of the seniority list of the cadre to which he belongs; and (ii) If the transfer is made on administrative or other reasons his seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the continuous length of substantive service on an analogous post." The said notification dated April 22, 1980 was not retrospective in effect. In other words, the amended sub-rule (4) of Rule 29 came into force w.e.f. April 22, 1980 and not from any prior date. The seniority of the employees transferred prior to April 22, 1980 would be governed by the old sub-rule (4) and the seniority of the employees transferred on April 22, 1980 or thereafter would be governed by the amended sub-rule (4). The said Circular dated June 20, 1984 (Annex-R/1) also does not say that the employees transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti prior to the April 22, 1980 would be governed by the amended sub-rule (4) of the Rule 29 of the Rules. Thus the seniority list Annex-P/2 does not correctly show the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner. September 9, 1952 should have been shown as the date of his substantive appointment not August 4, 1968. As such the writ petition deserves to be accepted. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to treat the substantive appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. September 9, 1952 and to fix his seniority accordingly in the Seniority list Annex-p/2 and also in the Final Seniority list. 9. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******