JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner came in the service of the State of Rajasthan in its Ground Water Department on November 6, 1969 as a Pump Driver. He was confirmed in the post on November 6, 1971. He was appointed Supervisor (Electrical) on August 16, 1972. 2. On June 10, 1981, the Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur wrote to Member Secretary, Absorption Committee, G. A. (III) Department Government of Rajasthan, declaring eight officials of the Ground Water Department to have been rendered surplus consequent upon abolition of eight posts of Electrical Supervisors vide Government letter dated June 7, 1980. The petitioner's name found place in the list of officials declared surplus along with seven others, two of whom were on deputation to P.H.E.D. It was also stated in this letter that the officials declared surplus could not be regularised on the post of Electrical Supervisor, on which they were working because the post of Electrical Supervisor was not incorporated in the Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Rules'), although proposals for inclusion of the post were sent to the Government by " Department. The General Administration Department advised the Chief Engineer to adjust the officials in the Ground Water Department itself on posts carrying the same pay and send details of the officials if such adjustment was not possible. The Chief Engineer thereupon transferred these eight officials to various places in the Department itself and the petitioner was transferred as supervisor to work in the office of the Assistant Engineer Alwar - dropping the appellation `Electrical' from the designation of his post. 3. On March 16, 1983, the Chief Engineer again wrote to the General Administration Department of the State declaring the petitioner and four other Supervisors surplus. In this letter the petitioner and the other Electrical Supervisors were shown to be ad hoc appointees on the post of Electrical Supervisor and the reason for their being declared surplus was stated to be abolition of five posts of Supervisors vide Government Orders dated February 14, 1983 and February 19, 1983 and these five persons being the junior-most Supervisors. The petitioner has sought quashing of this Order dated March 16, 1983 and consequential reliefs. 4. The petitioner contends that on August 16, 1972 when he was appointed Supervisor(Electrical), the Rules of 1973 were not in force. They came into force on December 22, 1973. The petitioner has sought quashing of this Order dated March 16, 1983 and consequential reliefs. 4. The petitioner contends that on August 16, 1972 when he was appointed Supervisor(Electrical), the Rules of 1973 were not in force. They came into force on December 22, 1973. In these Rules, in Schedule of posts, the post of Supervisor (Electrical) was not mentioned but the posts of Supervisor (Blasting) and Supervisor (Mechanical) which were equivalent in all respects to the post of Supervisor (Electrical) were mentioned. The petitioner could not help it. According to him, the omission was inadvertent as no provision was made in the Rules for those who were actually serving on the post of Supervisor (Electrical) and in the Rajasthan Ground Water Service Rules, 1969 which included the post of electrical Supervisor also along with the posts of Mechanical Supervisor and Blasting Supervisor in the channel of promotions for the post of Assistant Engineer, no amendment was incorporated to delete the reference to the post of Electrical Supervisor. It was further contended that had the Rules specifically mentioned the post, the petitioner and other Electrical Supervisors would have been confirmed in service along with the Mechanical Supervisor and Blasting Supervisor and would not have been treated as juniors in the common seniority list of Supervisors by the Department. 5. It is also contended that in fact the Department needs and maintains the post of Electrical Supervisors and Diploma in Electrical Engineering, is the qualification required for some other post also like Driller (sic) and Driller (Rotary Rig) which are in the channel of promotions to the posts of Drilling Supervisor and Drilling Foreman which posts in their turn were shown in the channel of promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer along with the post of Electrical Supervisor. 6. In their return in reply to the petition, the respondents took a stand that prior to coming into force of the 1973 Rules, only eight persons were employed as Electrical Supervisors. These posts were abolished in the year 1980 and persons working on the posts were declared surplus. However, these persons were allowed to continue against vacancies existing then till regularly selected persons to fill in these vacancies were available. When the regularly selected candidates became available and the State Government abolished five posts the employment of the petitioner and four others working against the posts were discontinued. However, these persons were allowed to continue against vacancies existing then till regularly selected persons to fill in these vacancies were available. When the regularly selected candidates became available and the State Government abolished five posts the employment of the petitioner and four others working against the posts were discontinued. It was also contended that the posts of Electrical Supervisor were a part of Project Directorate under the Plan Scheme which was abolished in the year 1980 and these posts came to an end with the abolition of Project Directorate.The petitioner then filed a rejoinder mostly reiterating the contentions in the petition but pointing out that all other employees of the Project Directorate were absorbed in the Ground Water Department itself. It was also pointed out that two similarly situated Electrical Supervisors were absorbed on the post of Drilling Supervisor. 7. Along with the Petition, a Stay Petition was also filed and on April 22,1983 a direction to maintain status quo was given. This order was directed to be continued on November 16. 1983. A Second Stay Petition was filed on January 5, 1991 seeking a direction for considerations for promotion was filed and application for vacating the stay order was also filed by the respondents. However, no orders were passed on these applications and instead the case was finally heard. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at the Bar that the petitioner has been working in the Ground Water Department and is at present posted at Jalore as Drilling Supervisor. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Obviously, the petitioner is suffering because the State Government did not include the post of Electrical Supervisor in the 1973 Rules. It did not also specify as to what would be the fate of those who were working on the posts. If the State Government wanted to abolish the posts it could do so directly for the reason that there was no work left for Electrical Supervisors in the Department or for whatever reasons. Like every Government action, the action of abolition of posts also has to be informed with reason to save it from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. Omission from the new Rules of already existing posts cannot be a fair and reasonable method of abolition of posts. Like every Government action, the action of abolition of posts also has to be informed with reason to save it from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. Omission from the new Rules of already existing posts cannot be a fair and reasonable method of abolition of posts. It certainly is not the usual method of abolition of posts. It appears that the omission to include the post in the 1973 Rules was inadvertent and unintentional. The fact that the Department itself requested the Government to include the post in the 1973 Rules and that no conscious decision was taken on this request not to include in the 1973 Rules, goes to show that. Moreover. if the intention had been to abolish the post, the 1969 Rules would also have been amended deleting the post of Electrical Supervisor from the channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Moreover when the petitioner and the like were first declared surplus on June 1981, the General Administration Department advised the Ground Water Department to adjust them in the Department itself on the post carrying the same pay. This advice was accepted and the petitioner was adjusted against the vacant post of Drilling Supervisor. The petitioner worked on this post without being told that it was not an adjustment but it was an adhoc appointment. No document has been put on record to show that a fresh order of adhoc appointment was passed in the case of the petitioner. Such Order even could not have been passed. The Ground Water Department had either to adjust these persons in the Department itself on equivalent post or to declare them surplus and advise the General Administration Department to absorb them in other Department. This clearly shows that the petitioner and the like were adjusted in the Department itself and were not declared surplus up to March 16, 1983 when again they were declared surplus. This time they were shown to be adhoc appointees and declared surplus because of the abolition of five posts of Supervisors by the Government. This Order is clearly untenable because as already stated, the petitioner and the other four persons were not adhoc appointees but they were the persons duly adjusted in equivalent posts. This time they were shown to be adhoc appointees and declared surplus because of the abolition of five posts of Supervisors by the Government. This Order is clearly untenable because as already stated, the petitioner and the other four persons were not adhoc appointees but they were the persons duly adjusted in equivalent posts. They have been shown to be the junior-most because they were not confirmed on the post of Electrical Supervisor for want of any such post in the Rules though till 1973 Rules came into force, the post of Electrical Supervisor existed in fact. As already discussed, the abolition of the post by omitting to mention it in the New Rules is extremely arbitrary and unjust. The Department therefore, could not treat the post as abolished by non mentioning in the Rules. 10. There is no doubt that the petitioner can be adjusted on an equivalent post as had been factually done before the Order dated March 16,1983. On the strength of an interim order, the petitioner has been working on the post of Drilling Supervisor right from the year 1983 and is still stated to be working on that post at Jalore. 11. In these circumstances, it is extremely arbitrary and unjust to throw the petitioner out of employment. 12. The respondent's action in declaring the petitioner as surplus employee and dispensing with his services on the ground that he was one of the Junior-most adhoc employees, therefore, cannot be sustained. 13. This petition is therefore allowed. The impugned Order dated March, 16, 1983 (Annexure 6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as duly adjusted in equivalent post like Drilling Supervisor/Blasting Supervisor w.e.f. December 22, 1973 on which date the 1973 Rules came into force. The petitioner's seniority in the adjusted post shall be reckoned from the date he was appointed on the post of Supervisor (Electrical) and he shall be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of such seniority. If in the meanwhile, promotions have been granted to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner shall be considered for those promotions and if found fit, shall get promotional benefits as if in the meanwhile he had been regularly appointed on the adjusted post right from the beginning. If in the meanwhile, promotions have been granted to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner shall be considered for those promotions and if found fit, shall get promotional benefits as if in the meanwhile he had been regularly appointed on the adjusted post right from the beginning. Since the petitioner has suffered all this because of the Government's omission to mention the post which was held by the petitioner in the Service Rules, he is also entitled to the cost of this petition which is quantified at Rs. 2000/-.Petition allowed. *******