JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition challenging the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 22/29.1.82 whereby the order, dated 20.10.1975, of compulsory retirement of the non - petitioner was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The petition has a chequred history. Having joined service in 1950 as Plant Protection Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture, he subsequently was selected and appointed in Rajasthan Administrative Services w. e f. 31.8.1962. His date of superannuation in normal course was 31.12.1982. He however, was compulsorily retired under Rule 244 (2) of Rajasthan Service Rules vide order, dated 22.10.1975. He challenged this order of compulsory retirement and filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 12.2.1979 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the non - petitioner filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 795/79, Shri Shiv. Lahari v. State of Rajasthan . Learned Single Judge of this court dismissed that writ petition on 26.10.79. Shiv Lahari thereafter filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 151 of 1979 which too was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.12.1979. The petitioner having been not satisfied with the order of the Service Tribunal and the two judgments of this court knocked the door of the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition which was refused vide order dated 28.4.80. Thus on one side the order dated 22.10.75 compulsorily retiring the petitioner was upheld up to Supreme Court. 2. The non - petitioner on the other hand continued his remedy before the Government and this opportunity was provided to him by the Government itself. Government of Rajasthan on 22.4.77 passed an order No. F. 13(42) Karmik/ACR whereby it communicated its decision that those Government servants who are retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules as amended by Finance Department Notification No. 1(50) FD Group -11/75 dated 25.11.1975 on completing of 20 years qualifying service ( the one under which the non-petitioner was retired ) and had not attained the age of 50 years at the time of passing order under Rule 244(2) of the R. S. R. , shall be taken into Government service. They were asked to make representations. They were asked to make representations. The non-petitioner being entitled to the revocation of the order on the ground that he had neither completed 50 years of age nor had 25 years qualifying service on the date of retirement order, made representations. The Government of Rajasthan rejected his representation vide letter, dated 7.6.78. The non-petitioner submitted that his representation was filed on 31.5.77 which was a detailed one. He had made several other representations. One on communicating the rejections of the representations except that of 31.5.77 which was made pursuant to Government Circular dated 24.3.77. Guidelines have been provided by the Government in the aforesaid circular which was filed as Ex. 10 before the Tribunal and despite the fact that communications had been made to the non-petitioner for rejection of his representations no mention had been Made to the representation dated 31.5.77 which was required to be considered unless it was communicated to him vide letter dated 4.4.81. Considering this. letter to be an order of rejection of the representation a fresh appeal was filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on 25.5.81, i.e., subsequent to dismissal of the case in Supreme Court. 3. The appeal was opposed by the State on two grounds - one is that the appeal was barred by limitation and secondly it was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata as compulsory retirement had already been upheld upto the Supreme Court of India. The Tribunal did not accept both the objections of the State and this time accepted the appeal vide order, dated 22/29.1.1982. It is this order of the Tribunal accepting the appeal, has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Garg appearing on behalf of the State has raised three points. His first contention is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which was barred by period of limitation. It was submitted that appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days of the date of compulsory retirement which appeal has been filed and decided on merits. It is submitted that no appeal lay against the rejection of the representation and that too when the same has been rejected as early as 1978. He filed this appeal in 1981 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is submitted that no appeal lay against the rejection of the representation and that too when the same has been rejected as early as 1978. He filed this appeal in 1981 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is then contended that question of compulsory retirement had already been adjudicated by all courts upto the Supreme Court and his service record has been perused time and again and there was no occasion of reviewing his case by the:Appellate Tribunal, it is barred by constructive res judicata. The third point raised is that the service record of the petitioner is apparently bad and a perusal of the same disentitles him to be taken in service. The writ petition has been challenged by Shiv Lahari who argued this case in person. He has submitted that there is no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal which calls for an interference by this court. He has submitted that the writ petition has also been filed after an inordinate delay of 9 months and the latches have not been explained and relied on The State of Raj. & 2 Ors. v. Kailash Shanker Sharma & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 94/79 , decided on 15.2.79 , Kamni Kumar Deus v. State of West Bengal : 1972 SLR 746 , Raja Kundra Gula v. State of A. P. : AIR 1960 A. P. 343 , Union of India v. M/S Suksha International AIR 1989 SC 690 , Lakshmiah v. Union of India : 1977 (2) SLR 532 , Gurappa v. Gangarva : 1984 (1) SLR 697 and R.S R.T.C. v. The Judge Industrial Tribunal : RLW 1980 P. 32 . But the question is whether the writ is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record neither there is breach of principles of natural justice nor the order is without jurisdiction. Besides this, the Tribunal's decision having based on a question of fact no interference should be done in the writ of certiorari. But the question is whether the writ is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record neither there is breach of principles of natural justice nor the order is without jurisdiction. Besides this, the Tribunal's decision having based on a question of fact no interference should be done in the writ of certiorari. On this point the learned counsel has relied on Swam Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1976 SC 232 , Natha Singh v. Financial Commissioner: AIR 1976 SC 1053 , Narendra Singh v. State : RLW 1980 P. 840 , Mahipat Singh v. Board of Revenue : RLW 1989 (7) P. 506 , MIS Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.: AIR 1959 SC 633 and The Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. v. The Workmen : AIR 1967 SC 1175 . It is submitted that the appeal of the petitioner could not be said to be barred by limitation because his representation had been finally disposed of on 4.4.81 and he filed the appeal within limitation from that date. It is submitted that none of the earlier communications is about the rejection of the representation, reference has been made to the main representation by the petitioner, dated 31.5.77 wherein the non petitioner has requested to review his case on the basis of the guidelines issued by the State subsequently. He has submitted that it was the notification of the State Government which gave him a right, to get his case considered and therefore, earlier proceedings have to be taken as nonest. It is submitted that therefore, neither the question raised was adjudicated nor the objection of delay could be raised. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the entire record. 6. The state case apparently appears to be sound but when it is looked into details it has no legs to stand as the State Government itself had been issuing circulars time and again to create confusions. In 1975 when the State of emergency was imposed the then State Government showed its enthusiasm in chopping of the so called deadwood by reviewing the cases of its employees who had completed 20 years of service and retired many of them and the non-petitioner be,came a victim. In 1975 when the State of emergency was imposed the then State Government showed its enthusiasm in chopping of the so called deadwood by reviewing the cases of its employees who had completed 20 years of service and retired many of them and the non-petitioner be,came a victim. According to horn due to this emergency mass scale compulsory retirement were made and it is in those proceedings that on judicial side he lost the case upto the Supreme Court. But with the change of the Government in the State all what was done in the emergency was sought to be under review and cases were required to be reviewed for which orders were issued by the Government of Rajasthan and one such order is F. (13)/48/Karmik/ACR/77 dated 22.4.77 which is reproduced hereunder :ORDERSub : Retirement of Government servants on the basis of 20 years of qualifying service under Rule 244(2) of RSR. Revocation of orders of retirement.The matter regarding grievances of Government servants retired under Rule 244(2) of R.S.R. has been under consideration of the Government for some time.The Government have now decided that only those Govt. servants who were retired under Rule 244(2) of R.S.R. as amended vide F. 1 Notification No. F.1(50) 75 (Gr.2) 75 dated 26.11.75 on completion of 20 years qualifying service or more but less than 25 years qualifying service and had not attained the age of 50 years at the time of their retirement under Rule 244(2) of RSR shall be taken back into Govt. service. Consequently, such orders of retirement issued by the authorities competent to retire such Government servants under Rule 244(2) of R.S.R. shall be revoked. The pay and allowances to such a Government servant for the intervening period beginning with the date of his retirement and ending with the date immediately before his rejoining duty and the treatment of the said period shall be regulated in accordance with the Finance Department Memorandum No. F. 1(41) FD (Gr.2)/76 dated 23rd September, 1976 (Annexure 1).It is, therefore, enjoined upon all authorities concerned to issue necessary formal orders in the form appended here to (Annexure II) in respect of aforesaid Government servants at the earliest. The orders may be communicated to the Government servants concerned by registered post. A copy of the orders so issued may be endorsed to Shri H.P. Agarwal, Deputy Secretary, Department of Personal (A-CR Cell), Secretariat, Jaipur. The orders may be communicated to the Government servants concerned by registered post. A copy of the orders so issued may be endorsed to Shri H.P. Agarwal, Deputy Secretary, Department of Personal (A-CR Cell), Secretariat, Jaipur. Sd/- (T.V. Ramnan)"Another circular issued a little prior to it was dated 24.3.77 which reads as under : fo"k; % jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds fu;e 244 ( 2 ) ds vUrxZr le;iwoZ lsokfuo`fRr dh izfdz;k ij iqufoZpkjA bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 9-7-1976 }kjk jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds fu;e 244 ( 2 ) ds vUrxZr lsokfuo`Rr O;fDr;ksa ds ekeyksa ij iqujkoyksdj lfefr }kjk iqujh{k.k dk izko/kku lekIr dj fn;k Fkk fdUrq eq[;ea=h egksn; }kjk dh x;h ?kks"k.kk ds vuqlj.k esa fnukad 9-7-1976 dk mi;qZDr ifji= bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 10-3-77 }kjk okfil ys fy;k x;k gSA blds ifj.kkeLo:i fnukad 24-6-76 ds i'pkr~ le;iwoZ lsokfuo`fRr O;fDr Hkh iqujkoyksdu lfefr }kjk fopkjkFkZ Kkiu izLrqr dj ldrs gSaA eq[;ea=h egksn; us ;g Hkh ?kks"k.kk dh gS fd ftu ekeyksa esa vf/kdkjksa ds nq:i;ksx ds dkj.k U;k; dk guu gqvk gS] ,sls ekeys eq[; lfpo ds /;ku esa yk;s tk ldsxsa tks bu ekeyksa dh tkap djsxsaA bl ?kks"k.kk ds Li"Vhdj.k esa ;g /;ku esa j[kus ;ksX; gS fd eq[; lfpo dsoy ,sls ekeyksa dh gh tkap djsxsa ftuesa lsokfuo`Rr O;fDr }kjk vFkok fdlh ekU;rk izkIr lEcfU/kr deZpkjh laxBu }kjk oSeuL; vFkok nf.Mr djus dh Hkkouk ds fdlh O;fDr dks mPpkf/kdkjh }kjk vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:iz;ksx djrs gq, U;k; ds xEHkhj guu dh flQkfj'k dh x;h gks vFkok ftu ekeyksa esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk xaHkhj :i ls mYya?ku fd;k x;k gks] c'krsZ fd bl izdkj ds ekeys bl foHkkx esa fnukad 31-5-77 rd izLrqr dj fn;s tkosaA 7. Several employees situated similarly who placed their cases were considered by the Government and were taken back in service with all consequential benefits. The Non-petitioner's representations, it appears, had been rejected without making any reference to his main representation dated 31.5.77 which had been rejected on 4.1.81. The Government was bound by its own circular and was required to consider the case of the non-petitioner in light of the guidelines provided, but without doing that taking into consideration the matter other than which was relevant, rejected the representation against which he filed an appeal. The Government was bound by its own circular and was required to consider the case of the non-petitioner in light of the guidelines provided, but without doing that taking into consideration the matter other than which was relevant, rejected the representation against which he filed an appeal. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment has threadbare considered all these points and considered year wise ACRs also in light of the circulars issued by the Government of which the Government is bound and then came to the conclusion that his compulsory retirement was bad in law and he is entitled to be reinstated with back consequential reliefs. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. On the question of limitation the Tribunal has thread are considered various representations made by the State. We have also gone through the orders of rejection passed by the State and have no hesitation in holding that no mind had been applied by the Authorities while rejecting the representations, rather no reference has been made to the main representation and only the reminders have been rejected, main representation remaining intact. Infact the record shows lack of proper application of mind. The non-petitioner had a right to get the representation considered in the light of the circular issued by the State from time to time and his case was to be taken up, it may be with other persons who had been compulsorily retired during the state of emergency. The Tribunal has also elaborately discussed the question of resjudicate and have come to a definite conclusion that it has no applicability in this case and in our opinion rightly so. The non-petitioner had not challenged his order of compulsory retirement on merits earlier and he had only come on the question of qualifying service and The Tribunal ordered that it would not debar him from agitating the question on merits now. A detailed study of the ACR had been done by the Tribunal before accepting the appeal and we find no error of jurisdiction as the same has been done in the spirit of the circular of the State Government issued from time to time. The order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.1975 does not suffer from any infirmity so as to be interfered by this court. We dismiss the writ petition with no order as to cost.Writ Petition Dismissed - No Order as to Costs. The order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.1975 does not suffer from any infirmity so as to be interfered by this court. We dismiss the writ petition with no order as to cost.Writ Petition Dismissed - No Order as to Costs. *******