JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief that the provisional seniority-list of Inspectors of the Transport Department, Rajasthan stated 23.2.1991 (Annexure -12) and the final seniority-list dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure-14) be declared illegal; and, for assigning seniority to the petitioners as per Rule 15(1), Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules of 1969') from the date of their appointment on the posts of Blaster or, in the alternative, for directions that the petitioners stood absorbed on the posts of Inspectors with effect from 30.11.1978 i.e., the date of their first absorption in the Transport Department. 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the facts summarised are that petitioner No. 1 Jaswant Singh was initially appointed on the post of Blaster on 8.2.1968 and petitioner No. 2 Gopal Singh was similarly appointed on 8.9.1969 in the Ground Water Department. These appointments were made after advertisement of the vacancies and due process of selection and, later on, made substantive with effect from 1.6.1970. In the Department, the proficiency certificate obtained by the petitioners was not treated as equivalent to the diploma by the State Government and thus they were not given the benefit admissible to diploma-holders. A writ petition was filed by one Mani Ram Rakhecha in the High Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1725 of 1975 Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan, for declaration that the proficiency certificate should be treated as equivalent to diploma. This Court in its judgment dated 22.12.1978 has held that the proficiency-certificate issued by the Movement of Rajasthan was equivalent to diploma in Mechanical Engineering and accordingly pay was to be fixed by treating the certificate-holders as equivalent to diploma-holders. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court and the benefit of the judgment was extended to all similarly situated persons vide order dated 3.6.1981. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner's pay was revised and fixed with effect from 1.9.1976 treating him to be diploma-holder. In the meantime, the petitioners were declared surplus in the Ground Water Board Department on 1.7.1978 and 1.5.1978 respectively and their names were referred to the General Administrative Department for their absorption. Vide order dated 30.11.1978 the petitioners were absorbed on the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Transport Department and on 15.4.1981 they were confirmed as such. In the meantime, the petitioners were declared surplus in the Ground Water Board Department on 1.7.1978 and 1.5.1978 respectively and their names were referred to the General Administrative Department for their absorption. Vide order dated 30.11.1978 the petitioners were absorbed on the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Transport Department and on 15.4.1981 they were confirmed as such. The order of absorption was challenged in appeal filed by one Jugal Kishore Purohit before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The same was registered as Civil Appeal No.957 of 1979. The appeal was allowed by judgment dated 11.6.1981 and their absorption was set at naught. It is alleged by respondents No. 7 and 8 in their return that the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the absorption of the petitioners was illegal and was contrary to the Rules of 1969 and, therefore, the petitioners' absorption on the posts of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector was declared illegal and the order of their absorption was quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court on 6.8.1983 which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1564 of 1981. Later on, by order dated 13.8.1984 the petitioners were absorbed from 13.8.1984 as Inspectors in the Transport Department and were confirmed on the said post with effect from 4.10.1990. This order of absorption was again challenged before the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 28.2.1986 has held the order of absorption of the appellants as Inspectors in the Transport Department valid. On 23.2.1991, a provisional seniority-list of Inspectors of the Transport Department was published inviting objections and the final seniority-list was issued on 16.8.1991 wherein the petitioners' names appeared at item No. 56 and 57 respectively taking their dates of appointment to be 18.8.1984, the date of their absorption as Inspectors. 3. The petitioners have joined as respondent No. 3 Shri Vishva Bandhu Acharya (shown at No. 4), Shri Roshan Singh (shown at No. 31). Respondents Durga Lal Mathur (shown at No. 17), Narayan Singh (shown at No. 22), Mangi Lal (shown at No. 26) and Prahlad Singh (shown at No. 34) all Inspectors in the Transport Department Respondents No. 5 to 8 were joined as respondents on their applications. 4. Respondents Durga Lal Mathur (shown at No. 17), Narayan Singh (shown at No. 22), Mangi Lal (shown at No. 26) and Prahlad Singh (shown at No. 34) all Inspectors in the Transport Department Respondents No. 5 to 8 were joined as respondents on their applications. 4. The respondent-State filed its return and has submitted that the petitioners were absorbed in the Transport Department in 1978 being surplus employees (Blasters) in the Ground Water Board Department and, at that time, the pay-scales of Blaster of the Ground Water Board Department and Sub- Inspector of the Transport Department were identical. They drew the pay-scale of the post of Blaster as revised in view of the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Ram Rakhecha v. State of Rajasthan and others. The benefit of the judgment was extended to all similarly situated persons and, as a consequence thereof, the pay of the petitioners as Blasters was revised. In view of the judgment when the pay of the Blasters was revised the pay of Blaster and the pay of Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Transport Department became equal and as such the General Administrative Department passed an order dated 13.8.1984 absorbing the petitioners on the posts of Motor Vehicles Inspectors. Thus, it is the case of the State that as the petitioners were holding the posts equivalent to the Motor Vehicles Inspectors they were absorbed as such. It is further alleged that the petitioners were assigned seniority from the date of their absorption in the Transport Department as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that their placement in the seniority-list of the Inspectors of the Transport Department is not in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 as they were entitled to counting of the period of their continuous substantive service in the parent department as Blasters. 6. Respondents No. 7 and 8 who were joined as parties on April, 1993 filed their separate return on 8th February, 1995 and have challenged the order of absorption dated 13.8.1984 and have also denied the petitioner's claim for placement of their names in the seniority-list counting their services rendered in the parent department. 7. 6. Respondents No. 7 and 8 who were joined as parties on April, 1993 filed their separate return on 8th February, 1995 and have challenged the order of absorption dated 13.8.1984 and have also denied the petitioner's claim for placement of their names in the seniority-list counting their services rendered in the parent department. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have sought a relief of change of seniority-list and as such all the persons whose names appear as senior to the petitioners in the final seniority-list are necessary parties and in the absence of all the necessary parties before the Court no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The absorption of the petitioners as Inspectors on 13.8.1983 was illegal as Rule 17(4) does not permit second absorption of the confirmed absorbed employee and once the petitioners were absorbed as Sub-Inspectors they no longer remained surplus within the meaning of Rule 3(1) of the Rules and thus they could not have been absorbed as Inspectors. Rule 15 of the Rules is in regard to inter se seniority of the absorbed employees and does not permit counting of substantive service in the parent department before absorption and the petitioners' seniority was rightly counted from the date of their absorption. 8. The question of counting of the period of services of the absorbed employees for the purpose of seniority is now well-settled so far as this Court is concerned by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1990(1) R.L.R. 576 Bhanwar Lal Malka v. State and others , wherein it has been held that the services rendered in substantive capacity in the parent department cannot be ignored for the purposes of seniority in the department wherein the employee is absorbed. The absorbed employee is entitled for counting of the period of services in the substantive capacity in the parent department before absorption and is further entitled to be kept immediately below the person whose services in the department in which he is being absorbed is more than the substantive services rendered by the employee being absorbed. The absorbed employee is entitled for counting of the period of services in the substantive capacity in the parent department before absorption and is further entitled to be kept immediately below the person whose services in the department in which he is being absorbed is more than the substantive services rendered by the employee being absorbed. The words used in Rule 15 of the Rules that the person absorbed shall be placed below the junior-most permanent employee of the new department who has longer period of continued substantive service on the post compared to the continued substantive service of the surplus employee on an equivalent or higher post, leaves no manner of doubt that the services rendered by the absorbed employee on an equivalent or higher post of absorption in the parent department shall be counted for the purposes of seniority in the absorbing department. The petitioners have to be placed in the seniority-list counting their services from the date of their substantive appointment as Blaster i.e., from 1.6.1970. 9. Now the question is whether such a relief can be granted to the petitioners in the absence of all the persons who have been shown senior in the final seniority list dated 16.8.1991. In this respect, it may be seen that some of the respondents viz., respondents No. 3, 4 wee Inspectors in the Department and shown senior to the petitioners have been joined as parties. Respondents No. 5 to 8, Inspectors have been joined as parties on their own request and have filed their return and have contested the matter. Respondents No. 7 and 8 who have filed the return have not raised any objection of non-joinder of the necessary parties is their return, although that has been raised in the application for permitting them to be impleaded as parties. The petitioners have claimed the relief that on true interpretation of Rule 15 of the Rules their services rendered as Blasters in the parent department should also be counted for the purpose of ascertaining their seniority in the department wherein they have been absorbed. In fact, the petitioners have agitated that the Rule has not been properly interpreted and applied while making the placement in the seniority-list. In fact, the petitioners have agitated that the Rule has not been properly interpreted and applied while making the placement in the seniority-list. In G.M., S.C. Railway v. A.U.R. Siddhanli and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1755 the apex Court has held that where the validity of the policy-decision is under challenge being violative of the Constitution seeking the relief against the State, it is sufficient that the State is impleaded as a party and non-joinder of the employees likely to be affected by the re-adjustment of the seniority-list is not fatal to the writ petition. In Ranga Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1987 Suppl. S.C.C. 15, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has been set aside on the ground that while determining the question of seniority the persons interested should have been joined as parties. In B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1985 Suppl. S.C.C. 432, the Supreme Court has held that if the interest of the person joined as a party and that of those who have not been joined as parties are identical and if it is being well-representated then non-joinder will not affect and further if the relief claimed is of general nature and is a claim against the State and no particular relief is claimed against any individual person then the failure to implead all affected parties will not be fatal defect. In Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 167 it has been held that the High Court should not have disposed of the writ petition under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by the judgment without being before it or, at least, some of them being before it as respondents. In Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 167 it has been held that the High Court should not have disposed of the writ petition under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by the judgment without being before it or, at least, some of them being before it as respondents. From the aforesaid decisions of the apex Court I draw the principles enunciated, that if the interest of the parties who have not been joined is being properly and effectively represented then non- joinder of all the parties to the proceedings will not be fatal defect or where the relief claimed is against the State seeking correct application of the Rules, the State is a necessary party in the proceedings and non-joinder of other persons who are likely to be affected by correct implementation of the rules are proper parties and their non-joinder will not be a fatal defect resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition. In a writ petition, the party alleging certain facts must plead and prove such facts which are relevant for the allegations made in the petition or in the return. If the facts are not pleaded and evidence is not annexed to the writ petition or in the return as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The answering respondents No. 7 and 8 have not raised the question of necessary parties in their return and thus cannot be permitted to raise the same at the arguments' stage. Apart from this, some of the persons likely to be affected by the relief claimed by the petitioners have been joined as parties and have effectively represented the interest of all others who have not been joined by filing return and active participation in the proceedings of this case. In these circumstances, non-joinder of the Inspectors shown as senior to the petitioners in the seniority-list is not a defect calling for the dismissal of the petition. 10. The respondents have challenged the order of absorption of the petitioners as Inspectors dated 13.8.1984 by raising the counter-claim in the return filed by respondents No. 7 and 8. Chapter 12 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 is with regard to the direction, order or writ other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Chapter 12 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 is with regard to the direction, order or writ other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Rule 376 reads as under : "376. Notice. - If the Court does not find sufficient reason to admit the application, it may reject it. Where the application is not so rejected, notice thereof shall be served on all persons directly affected by it. Where the application relates to any proceeding in or before a Court and the object is either to compel the Court or an officer thereof to do any act in relation to such proceedings or to quash them or any order made therein, notice thereof shall also be served on such Court or officer as well as the other parties to such proceedings, and where any objection is taken with respect to the conduct of a Judge, also on the Judge." It is manifest from the aforequoted rule that the writ petition is subject to admission and the Court may reject it at a preliminary hearing. It is only when a writ petition is not rejected that notice shall be served on all the persons directly affected by it. The counter-claim in the writ petition will be in the nature of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus will also be subject to admission by the Court and shall be entertained only if it is not rejected at the preliminary hearing i.e., at the motion-stage by the High Court. The counter-claim could be admitted on the same footing as that of the writ petition and simply because the respondent has raised a counter-claim they will not be entitled to a relief on the counter-claim raised. In the present case, the counter-claim was not admitted by the High Court. It was raised by the respondents No. 7 and 8 by way of return filed on 8th February, 1995. So, the respondents want to challenge the order of absorption made on 13.8.1984, nearly eleven years ago. By absorption rights are created of different persons absorbed long back and at this later stage claim of the respondents cannot be entertained. The claim made clearly suffers from the vice of delay and laches. So, the respondents want to challenge the order of absorption made on 13.8.1984, nearly eleven years ago. By absorption rights are created of different persons absorbed long back and at this later stage claim of the respondents cannot be entertained. The claim made clearly suffers from the vice of delay and laches. I do not find any substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents No. 7 and 8 that the cause of action accrued to them only when the writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the seniority-list and placement of their names in the seniority-list. Once, the person is absorbed in the service there is equality of opportunity for not only the purpose of seniority but also for the purpose of promotion and like matters of employment and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents No. 7 and 8 had no cause of action when the petitioners were absorbed in the service as Inspectors. In fact, some of the persons in the Department have challenged the absorption in the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and vide order dated 28.2.1988 the order of absorption dated 13.8.1984 of the petitioners was upheld which was not further challenged in any proceedings. The right to challenge the absorption accrued when the petitioners were absorbed and the question raised by way of filing counter-claim cannot be permitted to be raised. As a result thereof, the counter-clam is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. I need not go into other question challenging the absorption as I have dismissed the counter-claim on the ground of delay. It may be observed in this connection that the General Administrative Department of the State which is responsible for making a screening and absorption of the petitioners has not been joined as a party in these proceedings. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the provisional seniority-list dated 23.2.1991 and the final seniority-list dated 16.8.1991, so far as they relate to the petitioners, are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Transport Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to determine the seniority of the petitioners under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 giving them the benefit of their substantive service with effect from the date of substantive appointment i.e., 1.6.1970 as Blasters in the Ground Water Board department. The respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Transport Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to determine the seniority of the petitioners under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 giving them the benefit of their substantive service with effect from the date of substantive appointment i.e., 1.6.1970 as Blasters in the Ground Water Board department. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******