JUDGMENT 1. - As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner after passing her General Nursing and Midwifery Course from the Rajasthan Nursing Council in the year 1969 and the course of Ward-sister became qualified to be appointed on the post of Public Health Nurse (P.H.N.). She was appointed as Lady Health Visiter (L.H.V.) vide order dated 25.7.1969. Thereafter, she was appointed as Public Health Nurse vide order dated 12.3.70 (Anx.1). Vide order dated 28.3.1970 (Anx.2), she was posted as Public Health Nurse on regular scale of Rs. 150-330. Vide Annexure-3 she was given the new pay scale and in this document, she has been described as Public Health Nurse so also in Annexure-4 and 5 which is the statement of fixation of pay revision. The Government abolished some of the posts of P.H.N. vide their order dated 24.11.1989 and some of the PHNs were to be declared surplus. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner was declared surplus w.e.f. 12.2.1990 and it is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. Notices were issued. Reply has been filed on behalf of the non petitioners in which it has been submitted that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of P.H.N. but she was appointed only as L.H.V. She was asked to work against the post of P.H.N. only and therefore, it cannot be said that she was promoted to the post of PHN. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder wherein she has submitted two more documents dated 17.12.1990 (Anx. 13) and 23.2.1991 (Annexure-14). It has been submitted that the petitioner has been taken back in service initially vide order dated 17.12.1990 as P.H.N. and thereafter, this order was modified on 23.2.1991 (Annx. 14) and she has been described as P.H.N. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that other persons who are junior to the petitioner were still continuing in service and they were not retrenched along with her vide order dated 12.6.1990 and the persons who are junior to her have been retained and there by the principle of last come first go has been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that other persons who are junior to the petitioner were still continuing in service and they were not retrenched along with her vide order dated 12.6.1990 and the persons who are junior to her have been retained and there by the principle of last come first go has been violated. In reply to this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as P. H. N. but only as L.H.V. and she was working against the post of P.H.N. whereas Anita Sharma and Sunita Mishra were appointed as PHN. 3. I have carefully examined the record of the case and have gone through the petition, reply and the rejoinder. The documents produced by the petitioner amply show that the non-petitioners also have been treating her and recognising her as P.H.N. Therefore, it is not open for the non-petitioners to now submit that she has been appointed only as L.H.V. since it has not been denied that Anita Sharma and Sunita Mishra were appointed much later as PHN whereas the petitioner was working as P.H.N. since 1970. Even if some posts of P.H.N. were abolished persons who were appointed at a later point of time than the petitioner should have been relieved or retrenched earlier than the petitioner. 4. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 12.2.1990 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is already in service, she will be entitled to all emoluments etc. and other consequential benefits as if the order dated 12.2.1990 was not passed. Her appointment will be treated as continuous. 5. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******