JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in this court by the above named petitioner in the matter of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (M.C.E.) Service Rules, 1975 alleging the violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner after his graduation in Arts from the University of Udaipur in the year 1970 was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara (in short 'Mandi Samiti') on work-charge basis w.e.f. 11.10.1971. This appointment was approved by the Director of Employment on 5.9.1972 (Ex.1). On 13.9.1972 pursuant to the order issued by the Chairman of the Samiti (respondent No.4), the petitioner was appointed on monthly salary of Rs. 200/- w.e.f. 14-9-1972 vide Ex. 2. The terms of temporary appointment of the petitioner were extended from time to time with the approval of the Samiti in the following manner: (i) Extended upto 31.3.1974 by resolution No. 11 dated 30.8.1973; (ii) Extended upto 30.7.1974 by resolution No. 11 dated 7.1.1974; (iii) Extended upto 31.3.1975 by resolution No. 11 dated 3.10.1974. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the unblamished service record of the petitioner recommendations were made by the Director of the Samiti for promotion of the petitioner to post of Upper Division Clerk vide Ex. 3. On 7.6.1974 an order was issued by Chief Marketing Officer to all Mandi Samitis within the State that employees working on temporary basis be fixed in regular pay scales in accordance with New Pay Scales introduced w.e.f. 1.3.1973 vide Ex. 4. Thereafter in compliance with this order respondent No. 4 passed an order on 30.11.1973 whereby the petitioner was fixed in a regular pay scale of Rs. 110-230 as L.D.C. vide Ex. 5. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the period 17.12.1974 to 23.11.1975 the Joint Director, Mandi Samiti in exercise of the powers under Section 35(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (Act No. 38 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1961"), deligated the powers to the joint Director to exercise the powers conferred upon him under the Act vide Ex. 8. 3. 8. 3. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of his tenure as L.D.C., the petitioner's name was recommended to the next promotional post of U.D.C. and necessary approval was granted in view of the dearth of trained staff in Mandi Samities. The petitioner being a trained graduate and having sufficient experience was sent to Chandigarh for Market Secretary Training course for the period February to May, 1975. The petitioner executed a necessary bond required for the same with the Samiti, Bhilwara that after completion of his training, he will serve the Mandi Samiti. According to the petitioner he successfully completed the said course securing 1st Division vide certificate Ex. 9 on 21.7.1975. The Secretary Marketing Board directed the Mandi Samitis to obtain necessary sancron for creation of the post of Supervisor and the trained graduates were to be appointed on that post vide Ex. 10. The next promotional post after U.D.C. was that of Supervisor to which the petitioner was eligible. On 12.8.1975 by virtue of unanimous resolution passed in favour of the petitioner by the Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara, the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the next promotional post of Supervisor w.e.f. 12.8.1975 on obtaining necessary administrative approval from the competent authorities vide resolution Ex. 11. It is further submitted that the aforesaid resolution recommending. petitioner's promotion was considered by Joint Director, Agriculture, Udaipur, since the Director of Agriculture had delegated his powers to him under the provisions of the Act referred to above, vide orders dated 17.12.1974 (Exs. 6 & 7 respectively). Necessary sanction was conveyed in this regard on 19.11.1975 with specific mention that preference will be given in this regard to the trained employees of the Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara vide Ex. 12. It was further contended that the petitioner was accordingly promoted to the post of Supervisor vide order, dated 21.11.1975 and fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 130-300 w.e.f. 12.8.1975 vide Ex. 13, and since then the petitioner has been successfully discharging his duties as Supervisor after his regular appointment to the post of Supervisor. 4. Rajasthan Agriculture Market (M.C.E.) Service Rules, 1975 came into force w.e.f. 5.2.1976 and as per the provisions of these rules the petitioner has placed in the Pay-scale of Rs. 130-300 w.e.f. 12.8.1975 vide Ex. 13, and since then the petitioner has been successfully discharging his duties as Supervisor after his regular appointment to the post of Supervisor. 4. Rajasthan Agriculture Market (M.C.E.) Service Rules, 1975 came into force w.e.f. 5.2.1976 and as per the provisions of these rules the petitioner has placed in the Pay-scale of Rs. 150-330 w.e.f. the date of commencement of the rules, i.e., 5.2.1976 issued by the State Market Board for giving necessary sanction in the regular pay-scale as Supervisor in which the petitioner was fixed vide Ex. 14. 5. On 22.5.1979 a final seniority list of L.D.Cs. was issued by the State Marketing Board whereby the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 9. The petitioner submitted a representation before the said list was finalised, the provisional list having been issued on 4.12.1978 that since he was regularly selected as Supervisor, he be placed in the seniority list of Supervisors strictly in accordance with his merit position in order of seniority vide representation, dated 28.2.1979 (Ex. 15). It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 vide his order, dated 9.10.1979 had placed on the record the recommendations of the Screening Committee constituted under Rule 65 of the Rules whereby the employees of the Board were notionally promoted and placed in order of their seniority and in this order as per the final seniority list, the petitioner was found eligible to be promoted as UDC as referred to above, w.e.f. 31.3.1976 from L.D.C. and hence eligible to be promoted as Supervisor from UDC w.e.f. 31.3.1979 vide Ex. 16. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that final seniority list of the Supervisors, as referred to above, was not drawn up in accordance with the Rules inasmuch as instead of giving benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. date on which the petitioner was regularly appointed as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.8.1975, the seniority of the petitioner was fixed on the basis that the petitioner was deemed appointed as Supervisor w.e.f. 31.3.1979. As a result the persons who were not trained supervisors and who were junior to the petitioner and appointed after 12.8.1975 were placed above the petitioner in the seniority list on the basis of notional placement and on the basis of direct recruitment, while infact there was no direct recruitment ever conducted by the Board and hence such notional placement of the candidates as supervisors who were infact much junior to the petitioner got the benefit of seniority on the basis of imaginary presumption of direct recruitment drawn up by the Board which never existed at all. This resulted in gross discrimination to the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the respondents on 28.6.1982 vide Ex. 19. It was further submitted that the provisional seniority list of Supervisors was issued on 7.6.1982 by the Director Marketing Board wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 76 vide Ex. 18. Objections, if any, from the candidates who were affected by the said seniority list, were to be submitted within a month by the affected candidate. Accordingly the petitioner being aggrieved by the same, submitted his representation on 28.6.1982. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's seniority was fixed on the basis that he was appointed as Supervisor w.e.f. 31.3.1979 while infact he was regularly appointed as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.8.1975 as already referred to above. It was further contended that no attention was paid by the respondents to the objections raised by the petitioner in his aforesaid representation dated 28.6.1982. Since there was gross violation of Rules 65(4) and 68(1) of the Rules by the respondents while drawing impugned seniority list as referred to above. The petitioner was not considered and placed in accordance with his seniority which should have been reckoned with effect from 12.8.1975, i.e., the date on which he was promoted to the post of Supervisor instead of 31st March, 1979 which has been erroneously made. In this context it will be pertinant to refer to the relevant rules which are reproduced below: "Rules 65(3) Procedure for selection by Promotion-Wherever vacancies in various grades and categories of service are to be filled by promotion, the market committees concerned shall submit their recommendations in order of seniority in the lower grade to the Director along with service record of the persons recommended for promotion. (4) In selecting candidate for promotion, regard shall be had to their:- (i) Qualifications, knowledge and experience; (ii) Tact, Energy and Intelligence; (iii) Integrity; and (iv) Previous record of service". "Rule 68, Seniority-Seniority in each category of service shall be determined by the year of substantive appointment to a post in the particular category, provided (1) That if two or more persons are appointed to posts in the same category and in the same year, a person appointed by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by direct recruitment; (2) That the seniority inter-se of persons appointed to posts in a particular category by direct recruitment on the basis of one and the same selection, shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list, prepared by the Director or any other officer authorised by him; (3) That the seniority inter-se of persons appointed to posts in a particular category by promotion, shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list prepared by the Selection Board under Rule 65 (3). It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the above rules are strictly interpreted in accordance with their letter and spirit, the petitioner being a deemed appointee as Supervisor w.e.f. the year 1975 he should have been placed in order of seniority in terms of his substantive appointment as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.8.1975 instead of 31st March, 1979. Since there was no direct recruitment to the post of Supervisors at the time of petitioner's promotion, the question of any direct recruitment on the post, did not arise. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that while on 9th October, 1979 in the first seniority list which was drawn up by the respondents, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 3 in order of seniority out of total six candidates on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on national basis vide Ex. 16. In the final seniority list which was drawn up on 30th April, 1994 (sic 1984) vide Ex. 20, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 93 of the total list containing the names of 97 candidates, i.e., much below in order of seniority construeing his seniority as Supervisor w.e.f. 31.3.1979. This has resulted in great prejudice and discrimination to the petitioner qua other candidates. 6. 20, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 93 of the total list containing the names of 97 candidates, i.e., much below in order of seniority construeing his seniority as Supervisor w.e.f. 31.3.1979. This has resulted in great prejudice and discrimination to the petitioner qua other candidates. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri A.K. Purohit, in reply to the aforesaid contentions advanced at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner, that although the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. with respondent-Samiti w.e.f. 11th October, 1971, but his appointment was not approved by the Director of Employment vide order, dated 5th September, 1992. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1973 and when the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor, neither any Selection Committee was constituted nor any D.P.C. was convenedand as such the petitioner's promotion on the post of Supervisor was purely temporary and on ad-hoc basis as such the claim of the petitioner is not legal, since he has not been regularised on the post of Supervisor. It was further submitted that at the time of the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor, the employees of the Mandi Samiti were also governed by the said State employees Rules and as per such rules, the Mandi Committee should have atleast recommended for constitution of D.P.C. which was not done and in the absence of such recommendation from the Director Agriculture, the petitioner's promotion was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis. It was further contended that the Agriculture Rules, 1975 became effective w.e.f. February, 1976 and since the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor on 12th August, 1975 prior to the commencement of the rules, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor-could not be considered as a regular appointment. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that it is a well settled law that any resolution passed by the Mandi Committee should have the approval of the Director, Agriculture, Jaipur and in absence of such approval the claim of the petitioner is neither legal nor justified. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that it is a well settled law that any resolution passed by the Mandi Committee should have the approval of the Director, Agriculture, Jaipur and in absence of such approval the claim of the petitioner is neither legal nor justified. It was further contended in pars 11 of the reply filed in this court on behalf of respondent No.4 that by a letter dated 19.11.1975 a post of Supervisor was sanctioned but since the name of the petitioner was not at all recommended for promotion, as such the petitioner was not entitled for the same. In contradiction to this contention in reply to para 12 of the writ petition the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was working as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.8.75 but since his promotion was not regular and was an ad-hoc appointment without following the procedure for promotion to the post of Supervisor, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. It was further contended in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 in para 15 there is specific mention that although the Screening Committee has made notional promotions in accordance with law, "but so far as the petitioner's promotion is concerned no Screening Committee was held and he had been given ad hoc promotion in absence of Screening Committee". In reply to para 18 a very significant observation has been made as under: "It is not but of place to mention here that to the post of Supervisor there is no prescribed qualification and it has not been provided in law that only trained candidate would be appointed or selected for the post of Supervisor and as such the petitioner's representation dated 28.6.1982 is not at all legal and has not been considered to be fixed for seniority list in the Supervisor category". 7. In reply to the writ petition submitted on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the said respondents have submitted notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner's appointment was not approved by the Director of Employment but the Director of Employment had issued no objection on the appointment made by the Mandi Samiti which evidently means that the said Director had accorded his approval in favour of the petitioner to his initial appointment as L.D.C. with the Mandi Samiti. In para 6 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 the said respondents have taken a specific stand to the effect, "because the petitioner was treated as a regular employee from 1.4.1973. The employees were regularised in their appointments from 1.4.1973 vide 'No Objection' issued by the Employment Exchange Department". However, in same breath the respondents have contended that since the petitioner's promotion on the post of Supervisor in absence of selection, the petitioner's promotion on the said post was purely temporary and ad hoc and hence the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the post of Supervisor is neither legal nor tenable. However, they have admitted the lapse on the part of respondent No. 4 in not constituting D.P.C. which was contrary to the State Employees Rules and since the Mandi Committee is governed by such rules, it was enjoined upon the Committee to have atleast recommended for constitution of the D.P.C. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival claims, contentions and also perused the documents placed on the record. 9. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have made gross violation of Rules 65 (3) & (4) and 68 of the rules. According to sub-rule (3) of Rule 65 of the Rules it is mandatory requirement that whenever any vacancy in various grades and categories of service are to be filled in by promotion, it is obligatory on the marketing committee concerned to submit its recommendation strictly in order of seniority in the concerned grade to the Director along with complete service record of the persons recommended for promotion. Surprisingly enough the perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents there is a glaring departure and violation of the procedure for selection by promotion as envisaged in the said rule because there is no mention at all to this effect as to whether the said procedure for recommending other candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Supervisor was at all followed by the respondents and if so what reasons have been given for deviation and not following the procedure in case of the petitioner. There is neither any reference to the service record of the petitioner nor other candidates who were taken by direct recruitment by the Committee. There is neither any reference to the service record of the petitioner nor other candidates who were taken by direct recruitment by the Committee. It is surprising to note that for the past over ten years, i.e., 1.9.93 (83 ?) to 1.9.1994 no D.P.C. was convened for recommending the suitable candidates for promotion to the post of Supervisor during the relevant period. This fact is clearly apparent from the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 which has already been referred to above. Hence for the violation of the said rules the respondents themselves are to be blamed and the petitioner should not be held responsible to suffer the consequences for the said lapses. I am therefore, of the opinion that since as on the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor, i.e., 12.8.1975, his seniority should only be determined w.e.f. the said date when he was promoted as Supervisor from U.D.C. as substantive appointee w.e.f. 12.8.1975 and not w.e.f. 31.3.1979 as erroneously held by the respondents. 10. As a consequence I am of the opinion that the impugned order, dated 9.10.1979 (Ex. 16) is declared illegal to that extent and is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of the petitioner along with the other candidates afresh in accordance with the date of promotion of the petitioner as Supervisor with effect from 12.8.1975 instead of 31.3.1979 as erroneously held by the respondents. Since the petitioner was promoted as a substantive appointee w.e.f. 12.8.1975, his promotion to the post of Supervisor cannot be considered as ad-hoc as so considered by the respondents because he was regular appointee with the approval of the then Joint Director of Agriculture and merely because the rules came into force w.e.f. 1976, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not be placed at disadvantage for the same. Since the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor was done in accordance with the sanction and approval of the joint Director Agriculture by virtue of delegated powers on behalf of the Director in accordance with the rules, hence it cannot be said that the promotion of the petitioner was contrary to the said rules. Accordingly the seniority list dated 30.4.1984 (Ex. 20) and the impugned order, dated 9.10.79 (Ex. Accordingly the seniority list dated 30.4.1984 (Ex. 20) and the impugned order, dated 9.10.79 (Ex. 16) are quashed and the respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of the petitioner strictly from the date of his promotion i.e., 12.8.1975 as Supervisor as referred to above. I am further of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioner as a Supervisor on ad hoc basis could not be continued as ad hoc indefinitely, since the same would be in gross violation of the law settled by the Apex Court according to which an ad hoc appointee has to be regularised as soon as regular vacancy falls due in the said cadre. It is further directed that the above directions are given keeping in view the cardinal principle of Service Jurisprudence that care must be taken by the respondents in future to ensure that the denial of promotion to the deserving candidates when due not only results in stagnation in service but also results in consequent insecurity in the minds of candidates and resultant inefficiency which must be avoided at all costs. Care must be taken to ensure creation of better service conditions in future so as to attract better talent in service as it would not only generate confidence of the people in public employment but would also result in efficiency and better performance in discharge of their duties to the public at large. 11. With the above directions this writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. It is further directed that out of the above costs so payable, a sum of Rs. 5000/- shall be deposited by the respondents with the State Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur.Petition allowed. *******