JUDGMENT 1. - A short but important question of law falls for consideration in this writ petition. The question relates to the nature of appointment which is given under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975'). To be precise, whether an appointment made under the Rules of 1975 is to be treated as regular appointment for all purposes or the competent authority can make such appointment on casual or ad hoc and temporary basis ? 2. It would be convenient to set out the factual background to adjudicate upon the legal aspect of the controversy involved in the petition, which is thus : The petitioner's father late Shri H.D. Sharma had died while in State Government Service. At the time of his death he was holding the post of Superintendent in Police (Wireless) Department. The petitioner being P.G. Diploma holder in Computer Science with graduation, was given appointment as Programmer in the Planning (Computer) Department of the State Government, which is a subordinate Service, vide order dated 23.3.1990. In appointment letter his appointment was described as temporary though it was made under the Rules of 1975 on compassionate grounds on account of his father's death. He was, however, given regular pay-scale. Thereafter, the Director-Computer-cum- Deputy Secretary Planning, Computer Department vide office order dated August 17, 1993 issued a provisional seniority list of persons working as Programmers in his office. In that list petitioner's name was shown at S.No. 18. The petitioner challenged this seniority list by way of representation (Annexure 7) wherein he stated that his appointment, being under the Rules of 1975, was a regular one and he was holding a substantive post on 5.1.1993 when the Rajasthan Computer State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules of 1992) came into force. He also pleaded that he was not required to undergo screening for confirmation and persons holding posts of programmer on ad hoc or temporary basis cannot be reckoned senior to him. Then, another order, dated 8.9.1993, came to be issued regularising services of the persons holding posts of programmer on the basis of screening and examination of their A.P.A.Rs and other relevant service record. In this list also petitioner's name was at S.No. 18, junior to the persons who were holding the posts on ad hoc and temporary basis. Then, another order, dated 8.9.1993, came to be issued regularising services of the persons holding posts of programmer on the basis of screening and examination of their A.P.A.Rs and other relevant service record. In this list also petitioner's name was at S.No. 18, junior to the persons who were holding the posts on ad hoc and temporary basis. The final seniority list was issued on 23.2.1994 in which petitioner's placement was at the same position. Immediately thereafter, vide order dated 27.4.1994, on the basis of final seniority list, promotions of six persons were made to the post of Analyst-Programmer. In partial modification of the order dated 8.9.1993 a revised order was issued on 28.11.1994 by which regularisation of all the persons was made effective from the date of publication of 1992 Rules i.e. 5.1.1993. Another order dated 20.9.1993 was issued by respondent No. 2 whereby confirmation of the employees, including that of programmers, was made under Rule 36 of 1992 Rules. The petitioner, being aggrieved from the action of the respondents in not treating his initial appointment as a regular one and subjecting him to screening for confirmation in the cadre, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The principal contention made by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1975 is a regular appointment for all purposes and entire action of the respondents treating it as temporary is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. Learned counsel contended that by mere describing the appointment as temporary, petitioner's rights in service cannot be affected to his prejudice or taken away as all appointments made under the Rules of 1975 are regular in nature in contradistinction to a temporary or ad hoc appointment. According to Shri Rastogi if it is not held so the whole object desired to be achieved by the Rules would stand defeated, as it could not be the object and intention behind the Rules to provide a casual or ad hoc and temporary appointment to a person so as to remain in service at the mercy of the employer/authority concerned. It was, therefore, contended that petitioner was entitled to get his seniority and other benefits treating his initial appointment as regular one and he was not required to undergo screening for regularisation or confirmation. 4. It was, therefore, contended that petitioner was entitled to get his seniority and other benefits treating his initial appointment as regular one and he was not required to undergo screening for regularisation or confirmation. 4. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that petitioner's appointment was on a temporary basis and this fact is stated in the order of appointment. The petitioner, having accepted his appointment on temporary basis, cannot challenge the action of respondents which is otherwise justified as per 1992 Rules. Mr. Kumawat also contended that 1992 Rules were not in force when appointment was given to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, as such, his service has to be regularised and confirmed under Rules of 1992 and an appointment made on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1975 is subject to the Rules of 1992, which govern and regulate the recruitment and service conditions of the service. 5. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. As stated earlier, the fate of this petition depends on adjudication about the nature of petitioner's initial appointment which was provided to him on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1975. Another relevant question for consideration would be as to whether the petitioner could challenge the said appointment which has been described as a temporary one. 6. To decide the questions consideration of the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1975 would be necessary. There is no gain-saying that the Rules of 1975 have a social welfare object behind it and are intended to provide social and economic security to the members of the family of a deceased Government servant who dies in harness. Under the Rules one member of the family is provided employment to mitigate the hardship of the family created on death of bread-earner. These Rules, having been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, have a binding statutory force. They are special rules to regulate recruitment of the dependents of Government servants dying while in service and any order issued thereunder has an over-riding effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules, regulations or orders in force at the time of commencement of these Rules. They are special rules to regulate recruitment of the dependents of Government servants dying while in service and any order issued thereunder has an over-riding effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules, regulations or orders in force at the time of commencement of these Rules. Rule 5 enjoins an obligation on the competent authority to give suitable employment in Government service to one member of the family of a deceased Government servant provided conditions contained in the Rules are satisfied. It also provides that appointment is given against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules. For getting such appointment one should be qualified and eligible. Rule 6 prescribes contents to be incorporated in the application seeking employment. Rule 8 deals with relaxation for age and other requirement for the candidates seeking appointment under the Rules.Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 states that procedural requirements for the selection, such as written test, typing test or interview by a Selection Committee or any other Authority, shall be dispensed with but it shall be open for the Appointing Authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy that he will be able to maintain the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected on the post or prescribe any condition, if considered necessary, for acquiring any training or proficiency e.g. typing speed or any other qualifications etc., within a reasonable period after such employment under the Rules. Rule 9, then provides that the Appointing Authority shall satisfy itself about the character, mental and bodily health etc. of the candidate before giving appointment. 7. All these provisions, the background and the object desired to be achieved by providing employment evidently show that such appointments are not to be treated as temporary or ad hoc or casual. The object of dispensing with the procedural requirement for selection including interview by a Selection Committee or any other Authority is in consonance with the object and intention of the Rules, as if a dependent of a deceased Government servant was to face regular selection the whole object of 1975 Rules would stand defeated. The various circulars issued by the State Government from time to time also reveal in clear terms and appointments made under 1975 Rules are to be treated as regular appointments. The various circulars issued by the State Government from time to time also reveal in clear terms and appointments made under 1975 Rules are to be treated as regular appointments. Reference in this connection is made to the Circular No. F3(6) Pars/A-II(63/86) dated 8.12.1986 wherein the Government has notified that the persons appointed as L.D.Cs. under 1975 Rules are to be treated as regularly appointed and they shall not be required to pass the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Reference may also be made to Office Order No. F.2(25)GAII/73 dated 23.7.1979 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that appointments made under the Rules of 1975 are regular appointments. 8. In the light of the background aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that initial appointment of the petitioner as Programmer in pay-scale Rs. 2000-3200 vide order dated 23.3.1990 (Annexure-3) was a regular appointment and mere describing the appointment as temporary, was of no consequence. A similar view has been taken by this court in Suraj Mal Soni v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993(3) WLC (Raj.) 202 and Pritam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 659 . A Division Bench in Smt. Manju Sharma v. Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Bank, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 130/93 decided on November 5, 1993 had also considered a similar question and it was held that appointment of the appellant therein was under a special scheme and general rules of recruitment were not applicable. That the appellant was to be treated as regular appointee as her appointment was under the scheme which was for the benefit of the dependents of the employee dying while in service. The present case stands on better footing as appointment of the petitioner was under the Rules of 1975 which have statutory force providing special rules of recruitment of dependents of deceased Government servants dying while in service. 9. Having found and held the initial appointment of the petitioner to be a regular one, further grievance of the petitioner may be examined in the light of the Rules of 1992. 9. Having found and held the initial appointment of the petitioner to be a regular one, further grievance of the petitioner may be examined in the light of the Rules of 1992. At the outset, it may be stated that the respondents have not given the factual position about petitioner's appointment as to whether it was against a temporary or permanent vacancy and whether any vacancy of a programmer was created/sanctioned later on, if so, whether the appellant was considered against such permanent vacancy or not ? The respondents being the State and State functionaries are expected to narrate true and correct factual position so that the matter may be examined by the Court in the light of facts of the case. Their simple denial of factual averments made by the petitioner is not sufficient. I am constrained to observe that replies filed on behalf the State or State functionaries generally lack necessary facts and they are drafted in most casual and unsatisfactory manner. I hope and trust that in future replies of the State Government and State functionaries shall contain necessary facts. Be that as it may, it appears that at the time of petitioner's initial appointment as Programmer there was no regular cadre of Computer Services. The service rules i.e. The Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 to regulate recruitment to posts and the conditions of service were made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide notification dated December 5, 1993. It also appears that at the time petitioner's initial appointment there was a temporary post of Programmer, but subsequently permanent posts have been sanctioned from time to time as borne out from the averments made in para 4 of the writ petition. The respondents have also admitted in para 4 of their reply that the State Government by various orders had converted temporary posts of Programmer into permanent posts. Thus, on 5th January, 1993, when Rules of 1992 came into force the petitioner was holding the post of Programmer and his appointment was on regular basis under statutory Rules of 1975 and permanent vacancies were available after his appointment and before 5.1.1993, when the Rules of 1992 came into force. 10. Thus, on 5th January, 1993, when Rules of 1992 came into force the petitioner was holding the post of Programmer and his appointment was on regular basis under statutory Rules of 1975 and permanent vacancies were available after his appointment and before 5.1.1993, when the Rules of 1992 came into force. 10. In backdrop of the factual aspect as aforesaid, further question would arise for consideration whether the petitioner would stand senior to other persons holding the post of programmer on ad hoc or temporary basis on 5.1.1993. It is true that after the Rules of 1992 came into force, service conditions of the petitioner are governed by these Rules and his seniority has to be determined as per the Rules. Rule 2 of the Rules contains definition. Clause (k) defines substantive appointment as under : "(k) "Substantive Appointment" - means an appointment made under the provisions of these Rules to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these Rules and includes an appointment on probation or as a probationer followed by confirmation on the completion of the probationary period. Note - Due selection by any methods of recruitment prescribed under these Rules shall include recruitment either on initial constitution of Service or in accordance with the provisions of any rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, except an urgent temporary appointment." The petitioner's appointment is covered by the aforesaid definition. His initial appointment as Programmer, being in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1975, promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is a substantive appointment within definition of 'substantive appointment' as provided under the Rules of 1992. Urgent temporary appointment described in 'Note' are those appointments which are not regular under any statutory recruitment rules. 11. Then Part II of Rules of 1992 describes composition and strength of the service. Rules 5 describes constitution of the Service, which is reproduced as under being relevant for our purpose - "5. Urgent temporary appointment described in 'Note' are those appointments which are not regular under any statutory recruitment rules. 11. Then Part II of Rules of 1992 describes composition and strength of the service. Rules 5 describes constitution of the Service, which is reproduced as under being relevant for our purpose - "5. Constitution of the Service - The Service shall consist of : (a) All persons holding substantively the post/posts specified in Schedules I and II on the date of commencement of these rules; (b) All persons recruited to the post/posts included in the Service before the commencement of these rules; and (c) All persons recruited to the Service in accordance with the provisions of these rules, except urgent temporary appointments under rule 33." 12. The post of a Programmer is included in subordinate services. As seen earlier petitioner's appointment being regular and substantive on 5.1.1993, he stands included in the Service by virtue of Rule 5(a). His case also falls under clause (b) as he was recruited as Programmer which is a post included in the service before commencement of the Rules. 13. Rule 34 (relevant portion) which deals with seniority of the persons, reads as under:- "Seniority - Seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of the Service or lowest categories of posts in each of the Group/Section of the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher posts in the Service or other higher categories of posts in each of the Group/Section in the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts. Provided: (i) that the seniority of the persons screened under rule 6(1)(ii) shall be fixed below all the persons appointed regularly by direct recruitment or by promotion upto the date of commencement of these rules and the seniority inter se of these persons shall be determined by the Committee according to the length of continuous Service in an ad hoc or officiating capacity or on urgent temporary basis." 14. As per the above rule the seniority of the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment as Programmer, being a regular appointment. As per the above rule the seniority of the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment as Programmer, being a regular appointment. In any case, his seniority will be above all such persons who were required to be screened under Rule 6(1)(ii). 15. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner was also screened under rule 6(1)(ii) and as such his seniority has been rightly determined. To examine this contention Rule 6(1)(ii) may be referred which runs as under:- "(ii) the persons not covered by rule 5, who were appointed to the posts included in Schedule-I and II on ad hoc or officiating or urgent temporary basis and who have been continuously holding such posts for at least one year on the date of commencement of the Rules shall be screened by a Committee referred to in Rule 29 for adjudging their suitability on the posts held, provided they prossessed the requisite qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment or promotion or the prescribed qualifications on the basis of which such persons were selected for ad hoc/officiating/urgent temporary appointment. This provision shall be subject to the following conditions viz:- (a) ........... (b) ..........." 16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule would make it clear that screening under this rule was necessary of those persons not covered by Rule 5 and who were appointed on the posts on ad hoc, officiating or urgent temporary basis. The petitioner is covered by Rule 5 as noticed earlier as his appointment was not ad hoc, officiating or urgent temporary basis but it was a regular appointment under the Rules of 1975. Hence, he could not be screened under this rule. If he was wrongly screened under this rule, by not considering his appointment as regular one under the Rules of 1975, his rights cannot be defeated or jeopardised simply by the fact of his screening. The petitioner has been stressing time and again that his initial appointment as Programmer be treated as regular and substantive one and if the authorities failed to pay any heed to his request, neither his right to get proper placement in seniority can be defeated or taken away, nor the rule of estoppel would apply against him. The petitioner has been stressing time and again that his initial appointment as Programmer be treated as regular and substantive one and if the authorities failed to pay any heed to his request, neither his right to get proper placement in seniority can be defeated or taken away, nor the rule of estoppel would apply against him. The respondents have no legitimate defence to deny seniority to the petitioner above those persons whose appointments were not regular and were holding posts of programmer on ad hoc/officiating or urgent temporary basis on the date of commencement of the Rules of 1992. In view of this the petitioner is entitled to get proper placement in seniority and all consequential benefits thereupon. 17. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is, hereby, allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get proper placement in the seniority list and consequential benefits of promotion etc. in light of the above discussions. The respondents are directed to re- determine seniority of the petitioner and give him all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get costs of this writ petition which is quantified as Rs. 2,500/-.Petition allowed. *******