JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached to this Court with a prayer that he may be treated on duty w.e.f. January 10, 1998, i.e. the date on which the petitioner submitted his first joining report with all other consequention benefits. 2. The contextual facts depict that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Coock/Chowkidar vide order dated January 7, 1998. The appointment was given to the petitioner after he was found eligible by screening and examining committee as the petitioner had worked in the Department as a part time employee relaxation in age was also given to him. The petitioner has annexed order of appointment dated January 7, 1998 with the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his first joining report alongwith the copies of the order, medical certificate as well as certificate in respect of age on January 10, 1998. Photostat copy of the application dated January 10, 1998 have been filed as Annex. 2 with the writ petition. It was duly received by the Superintendent Hostel Rajgarh Alwar. 3. It is contended that the said application was filed by the petitioner after receiving the directions on January 7, 1998. The petitioner annexed the copies of orders dated Feb. 3, 1998 and Feb. 4, 1998 as Annex. 4 and 5 and contended that the respondents did not allow him to join the duty. The petitioner thereafter served a notice for demand of justice in the month of March, 1998 but no relief was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was dragged to this court for seeking relief. 4. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and averred that the petitioner did not submit medical certificate as he was not eligible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, he was not allowed to join the service. Though the notice for demand of justice was received by the respondents but no reply was given to the petitioner as he was not entitled for any relief. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully screened the material on record. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21171/1997 which was decided on March 20, 1997, incorporated the draft action plan/scheme for regularisation of the part-time Chowkidar/Coocks. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully screened the material on record. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21171/1997 which was decided on March 20, 1997, incorporated the draft action plan/scheme for regularisation of the part-time Chowkidar/Coocks. The scheme was divided into three phases and in accordance with the said scheme, the services of the petitioner were regulised and order Annex. 1 came to be passed. Thus the respondents were duty bound to honour the directions, issued by the Supreme Court. 6. The respondents alongwith their reply annexed letter dated January 17, 1998, written by the Social Welfare Officer, Alwar, to the Director, Social Welfare Deptt., Jaipur. A look of the said letter demonstrates that certain clarifications in respect of the petitioner have been sought. Annexure R-2 is an order dated March 9, 1998, passed by the Director, Social Welfare, Jaipur, deliting the name of the petitioner from the appointment letter. A perusal of the said order Annexure R-2 reveals that the name of the petitioner had been delited from the appointment order on the ground that the petitioner was not working on May 1, 1995. It appears that the order Annex. R-2 had been passed without properly appreciating the directions issued by the Apex Court. The order Annex. 1 was passed after the petitioner was thoroughly examined by the screening and examining committee. The services of the petitioner were regularised in the first phase which goes to show that he had completed five years of service on May, 1995, as a part time employee and in view of the draft scheme incorporated in the judgement of the Apex Court, his services were ordered to be regularised, therefore, the order Annexure R-2, whereby the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the appointment order is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The act of respondents in not allowing the petitioner to resume the duty is also arbitrary and discriminatory and it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated March 9, 1998 passed by the Director Social Welfare, Jaipur Annx. 2, is set-aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume the duties w.e.f. January 10, 1998 with all other consequential benefits within 15 days from today. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated March 9, 1998 passed by the Director Social Welfare, Jaipur Annx. 2, is set-aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume the duties w.e.f. January 10, 1998 with all other consequential benefits within 15 days from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs which is quantified as Rs. 3000/-.Writ Petition Allowed. *******