JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The grievance of the petitioners as unfolded by this writ petition in short is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Hot-Line Operators on 22.11.1986 in the office of the District Collector, Kota (respondent No. 2). The said appointments were made after the petitioners had undergone the requisite training, required for appointment as Hot-Line Operators. This fact is borneout from the departmental certificate (Annexure-1). After the completion of the training, the petitioners were sent to the Collectorate, Kota by the Dy. Controller of Civil Defence, Kota in terms of his letter dated 22.11.1988 (vide Annexure-2). The petitioners reported for duty on the same date i.e. 22.11.1988 and this fact is borne out from the joining report of the even date (vide Annexure-3). The petitioners thus acquired requisite practical training and experience on account of their having worked continuously without any break as Hot-Line Operators. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended at the bar that from time to time respondent No. 2 had made favourable recommendations for the petitioners for their temporary appointment on the post of Hot-Line Operators. In view of the State Government's order dated 14.6.1987, the Hot-Line Operators in the District Collectorates were to be constantly ready for performing their duties and the hot-line was to be kept in operation round the clock. 3. Since the petitioners had been continuously discharging their duties as Hot-Line Operators uninterruptedly w.e.f. the date of their appointments i.e. 22.11.1988, they made representations to the respondents for regularisation of their services and this fact is borne out not only from the representations, which are on the record, but also from the favourable representations, made in this regard by the various authorities including District Collector, Kota (respondent No. 2) vide Annexures-10, 11 and 15 respectively. In the meanwhile pursuant to the aforesaid representations of the petitioners, the respondents sanctioned 4 posts of LDCs in District Kota vide Annexure-9, dated 28.12.1989 for hot-line operations and the appointment of the petitioners as Hot-Line Operators (LDCs) is confirmed from this document as well as the recommendation letter dated January, 1990 (Annexure-10) on the record. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 20.4.1991 (vide Annexure-19) on the record, the petitioners were fixed in the minimum of pay-scale of Rs. 950/- to Rs. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 20.4.1991 (vide Annexure-19) on the record, the petitioners were fixed in the minimum of pay-scale of Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1,680/- + D.A. This order subsequently came to be amended (vide Annexure-20) dated 8.4.1992 by which the petitioners were given the benefit of regular pay-scale of LDCs i.e. Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1,680/-. This pay scale was made effective retrospectively w.e.f. 13.2.1991 in pursuance of the State Government's order dated 13.2.1991 (Annexure-18) on the record. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has also not disputed this fact that the petitioners were given the regular pay-scale (vide Annexure-R/1) (though not on the record) dated 23.12.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Notification dated 12.10.1992 (vide Annexure-26), which was issued in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by which the Hon'ble Governor of Rajasthan made the following amendments in the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, for short "the Rules, 1957". After the existing sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 of the said rules, the following sub-rule (10) was added namely:- "(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7 all persons appointed as LDCs on ad hoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and are still working as such on the date this amendment comes into force shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition that they pass a performance test conducted by the Head of the Department concerned within a period of three years in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in Part IV of Schedule-I. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years : Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be availed within a period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from service." 5. The bare perusal of the aforesaid amendment to the sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 of the Rules, 1957 explicitly reveals that all those candidates who were appointed as LDCs whether on ad hoc or on daily wage basis during the period 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and who were still working as such on the date when this amendment came into force, it was mandatory for the department, in which the candidates were working to appoint them on regular basis subject to the availability of (a) vacancy, (b) their passing the performance test, conducted by the Head of the Department concerned within a span of 3 years in accordance with the rules, (c) such candidates could avail the benefit of 3 chances to pass the test within a period of 3 years, and (d) it was further directed that in the event of their failure to pass the test within the aforesaid period, they shall be liable to be removed from service. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notwithstanding the aforesaid amendment to the rules, the respondents failed to conduct the necessary test as referred to above and as a result of which the regularisation of the petitioners on the post of LDCs could not be done till date. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that soon after the aforesaid amendment, the petitioners made a representation to the respondents on 13.11.1992, on which respondent No. 12 informed the petitioners that since they were appointed on 13.2.1991, their services could not be regularized. This contention of the respondents is contrary to the aforesaid Notification dated 12.10.1992 since the appointment of the petitioners was during the intervening period i.e. between 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and since the petitioners were already functioning as LDCs (Hot-Line Operators) vide Annexure-26 dated 12.10.1992 the contention, advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not working as LDCs is contrary to the record. 7. 7. Prima facie I am of the opinion that once the aforesaid Notification had been issued by the State Government amending the Rules of 1957 laying down the criteria for regularisation of the LDCs who were appointed either on temporary basis or on ad hoc basis and who were ready to appear in the performance test, to be conducted by their respective Heads of the Department, it was mandatorily binding on the respondents to have conducted the said test for regularisation of the respective candidates as LDCs. This fact is also borne out from internal correspondence of the DOP i.e. communication dated 12.10.1992 vide (Annexure-27), by which it was enjoined upon all the Heads of Departments (Divisional Commissioners/Collectors) to hold the performance test within 15 days of the issuance of the aforesaid Notification but the same has not been followed by respondent No. 2 viz. the District Collector, Kota. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Annexure-30, dated 19.1.1993 of Collector, Jhunjhunu, which fortifies his contention that three other similarly placed candidates after passing the requisite performance test as referred to above were regularised on the post of LDCs and they are working as Hot-Line Operators. In this regard I am of the opinion that it was not open to the respondents to take contrary view of the matter and to discriminate the petitioners qua similarly placed candidates as referred to in the Annexure-30 dated 19.1.1993. 9. My observations are fortified from the Judgments of this Court in the matters of Narayan Swami v. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 7252 of 1993, decided on 26.4.1996. The similar controversy had arisen in the abovenoted writ petitions before this Court and the question at issue was with regard to the Notification dated 12.10.1992, which was published by the State of Rajasthan and wherein it was held that all the LDCs who have been working as Daily Wagers on ad hoc basis during the period on 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990, they should be considered for appointment as regularly selected candidates subject to availability of the vacancies and subject to their passing the performance test to be conducted by the department within a period of 3 years as referred to above. The mandamus was also issued by this Court directing the respondents to conduct the test in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification amending the Rules. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is fully applicable to the instant case and I find no reason to take contrary view of the matter. 10. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt in Civil Appeal Nos. 14528-530 of 1996 decided on 23.10.1996 reported in 1996(8) Supreme Today 215 : 1997(1) SCT 451 (SC). The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court in the said appeals was with regard to the candidates whose appointment was made as Class-IV employees as part-time, de hors the Rules. The said candidates raised their grievances for regularisation of their services. The question at issue before the Apex Court was as to whether the said candidates were entitled to be conferred with the temporary status or regularisation of their services as directed by the learned Tribunal, since the directions were issued pursuant to the enquiry by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension on the relevant date as contained in the memorandum ? It was held that they were not entitled to claim such status as they were not appointed on regular basis in accordance with Rules and hence it was held that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal was contrary to the Rules. 11. On analyzing the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that it is not applicable to the instant case in view of the fact that in the aforesaid matters at issue before the Apex Court, the question was quite different than what has been urged by the petitioners in this writ petition since the appointments made in the above matter were contrary to the Rules. Therefore, it was held by the Apex Court that they could not claim for regularisation of their services in accordance with the Rules and to that effect the direction issued by the learned Tribunal was held non est whereas in the instant writ petition, the question at issue is quite different since the appointment of the petitioners has not been disputed by the respondents as contrary to the Rules and rather their appointments as Hot-Line Operators (LDCs) are perfectly just and in accordance with the Rules and the question which is at issue is regarding their regularisation of services pursuant to their passing of the requisite/prescribed test as recorded in the Notification as referred to above. 12. The writ petition is consequently allowed with the directions to the respondents to conduct the requisite test as prescribed under the Rules vide Notification of the State Government dated 12.10.1992 (Annexure 26) as referred to above within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by giving due intimation of the same to the petitioners as well as other eligible candidates by issuing a Notification of the same well in advance for conducting the said test. In case the petitioners appear in the said test and qualify the same, then it shall be incumbent upon the Respondents to regularise their services as LDCs pursuant to the aforesaid Notification and in accordance with the Rules. 13. With the above directions the writ petition is consequently allowed and disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******