Honble MADAN, J. –Petitioner, who is in service of the department of lrrigation Jaipur Zone Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on the post of Munshi Gr. l since 1.11.1977 in pay scale No. 6 of 950-1680 as prescribed for the Work-charged employees who are governed by the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964, has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that notwithstanding his position as Senior Munshi Grade-1 as per his seniority position as reflected from seniority list dated 18.4.1991 (Vide Annexure-11) after having been declared permanent Store Munshi Grade-1 in accordance with Work charge Rules, 1964, his candidature for the change of cadre from Store Munshis to that L.D.C.s has been ignored by the respondents in contravention of the Rajasthan Subordinate Staff Ru-les, 1957 (for short ``the Rules of 1957). (2). The case of the petitioner is that after his initial appointment he was made semi permanent work charged employee by order dated 1.5.1980 and then was posted at Som Kamble Amba Project, Dam-Sub-Division Dungarpur, but the respondents have been taking work from him on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the recruitment cell because he did also possess the requisite academic qualification. It is also his case that pay scale of 950-1680 prescribed for Munshi Gr.l work charged imployees is equal to the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk and therefore, Devi Singh, respondent No. 5 who was initially appointed as work charged employee in May, 1982 as Munshi Gr. II in pay scale of 800-1250 (scale No.3) in the office of the Additional Chief Engineer of lrrigation, Jaipur Zone, was appointed by order dated 1.11.1990 (Annex.5) on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pay scale of 950-1680 at basic pay of Rs. 950/-by the department -respondents, whereas he was not appointed as Lower Division Clerk despite the fact that he was senior to Devi Singh. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of appointment order dated 1.11.1990 (Annexure 5) of respondent No. 5 declaring it null & void and against that post, the petitioner has claimed his appointment as LDC w.e.f. 1.11.1990 alongwith seniority. The contention of the petitioner is that his candidature was ignored by the respondents in making selection and giving appointment to respondent No. 5 and two others namely; Madan Lal Choudhary and Mahaveer Singh Poonia who were both appointed as L.D.Cs vide (Annexure-10) dated 2.7.1991. (3). The contention of the petitioner is that his candidature was ignored by the respondents in making selection and giving appointment to respondent No. 5 and two others namely; Madan Lal Choudhary and Mahaveer Singh Poonia who were both appointed as L.D.Cs vide (Annexure-10) dated 2.7.1991. (3). In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred that by order dated 18.12.90 (Ann.4) he was declared as surplus. In reply to this para, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has made false averments in para 5 of his writ petition. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application for deletion of this para 5 which was allowed by order of this Court on 14.9.93. (4). The petitioner placed reliance on the Notification dated 18.12.1989 whereby the amendment has been made in the Engineering Subordinate Services Rules in the Schedule by adding to Column No. 3 to Rule 6 as under- ``that persons employed on work-charged basis in Public Works Department/ lrrigation `Indira Gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira Gandhi Nahar Board Command Area Development Department), Ayurved Department and who have put in atleast two years continuous service as on 1.4.88 and such other employees who have been working on lower posts in the department and possess the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to any of the post of Driver, Tra-cer, Foremen, Junior Draftsman, Laboratory Assistant, Lavoratory Attendant etc. may be considered once only for appointment on these posts against direct recruitment quota alongwith fresh names received from open market candidates and upto 50% vacant posts may be filed out of the above categories of work-charged employee and other employees in relaxation of age limit prescribed in these rules: Provided they are otherwise found suitable by the selection committee- The concerned appointing authority while inviting applications for direct recruitment to these posts may also invite applications from work-charged employees and other employees working on lower posts in the department possessing the requisite qualifications for the posts. (5). The petitioner has contended that in gross violation of the Rules, his seniority has been changed qua respondent No. 5 by the respondent lrrigation De-partment because the petitioner since had been appointed much earlier in point of time and had been working in the same zone since 1977, while respondent No. 5 having been appointed subsequently in 1982, could not obviously rank senior to the petitioner. Further respondent No. 5 having never been declared surplus Munshi Gr. II but in gross violation of Rules 4,7 and also in violation of the Circular dated 18.12.89, was adjusted on the post of Lower Division Clerk. According to the petitioner, other juniors namely Nanagram and Mahesh Kumar, who were also appointed as Munshi Gr. II in the same Zone much subsequent to the petitioner, have also been appointed on the posts of Lower Division Clerk. Thus, the depart-ment has applied defferent yardstick for the said appointments and the petitioner has been discriminated. (6). The respondents have denied that the petitioner was asked to work as LDC. The case of the respondents is that the cadres of Munshi and Lower Division Clerk are distinct and separate and cannot be equated for consideration of promo-tion or appointment inasmuch as experience certificate (Ann.3) does not show the petitioner of having worked as LDC nor can any equation he claimed qua the post of Store Munshi. It has further been contended by the respondents that the respondent No. 5 was appointed in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules after duly undergoing selection process and was not in any way promoted from Munshi Gr.ll to Lower Division Clerk, inasmuch as the process of appointment being through as the process of appointment being through a duly constituted Selection Committee, hence, the relative of candidates who belongs to different cadres, seniority has no relevance because the selection was made in accordance with rules and petitioner cannot have any cause for rais-ing any grievance. The respondents have further contended that the ground of seniority in the cadre of Store Munshi has nothing to do with the application of amended rules by which the post of LDC was open for direct recruitment from other categories to the extent of 50% and otherwise also the seniority of the petitioner cannot be equated with an employee of different division, and according to the am-ended Rules, if any post has to be filled, then it should be from the surplus work charged employees and since the petitioner was never declared as surplus, he was not entitled to take benefit to that admissible to surplus employees. Moreover, the Rules permit appointments of only work-charged employees to the post of LDC and not regular Munshis. (7). Moreover, the Rules permit appointments of only work-charged employees to the post of LDC and not regular Munshis. (7). The respondents have further contended that though the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 3 months and thereafter continued in service as per exigency of the work in the projects of the lrrigation Department and he was declared Semi-permanent on the post of Munshi in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1964, the duties which the petitioner has been performing on the post of Munshi cannot be equated to the post of Lower Division Clerk and hence the case of the petitioner cannot be equated to that of respondent No. 5 since he was subjected to face selection process and after adjudging his suitability, the selection committee had recommended his appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk to which he was appointed in accordance with the amended Rules. (8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully considered the contentions and material on record besides the relevant rules. (9). Admittedly the petitioner is a semi-permanent work charged employee of the lrrigation Department of the State since 1.5.1980 and ever since then has been continuing in service. Being work charged employee, his services are governed by the Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short ``Rules of 1964), which were framed for regulating recruitments and conditions of service of the work-charged employees of the aforesaid departments including lrrigation Department. The Work-charged Employee Rules have been repealed by the Raja-sthan PWD (B&R) including Gardens, lrrigation, Land Development (Programme) Circle CAD Chambal Department, Kota (including its Division/Sub-Divisions) Water Works, Ayurvedic & Forest Department (excluding Departmental Operation Circle) Work-charged Employees Service (Repeal) Rules 1995 which came into force w.e.f. 17.2.95 as published in Rajasthan Gazette Extra Ordinary 4(g) (1) dt. 21.2.95. However, under proviso to Rule 2 of the aforesaid Repeal Rules of 1995 the existing Work-charged employees shall continue to be governed by the Rules so repealed till their retirement or absorption/ appointment on regular posts in any other department of the State Government. 21.2.95. However, under proviso to Rule 2 of the aforesaid Repeal Rules of 1995 the existing Work-charged employees shall continue to be governed by the Rules so repealed till their retirement or absorption/ appointment on regular posts in any other department of the State Government. Thus by virtue of proviso to Rule 2 of the afore-said Repeal Rules of 1995, the petitioner being existing work-charged employee would continue to be governed by the Work-charged Employees Rules of 1964 till his retirement or absorption/appointment on a regular post in any of the aforementioned departments of the State Government. (10). Part ll of the Work-Charged Employees Rules of 1964 prescribes General Service Conditions to the work-charged employees. Its Rule 3 prescribes categorisation of the work-charged employees (including the regular technical staff of water works department) and for the purposes of these Rules of 1964, the employees have been divided into the three categories -(i) permanent status, (ii) semi permanent status, and (iii) casual. The only distinguishing feature contemplated in these Rules of 1964 with regard to the work charged employees qua regular employees serving in the different deportments of Rajasthan Government is that nothing in these Rules of 1964 shall entitle any work-charged employee categorised as either permanent or semi-permanent to claim the status or benefit of permanency or semi permanency to which a regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1964, Further, Sub-rule (2) to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 provides that the employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work charged employees provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory. Similarly, under Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964 the employees who have been in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employees or of semi permanent regular technical staff, provided their service record in the opinion of competent authority is satisfactory. In any event, the Rules of 1964 do not permit any work charged employee to claim either permanent or semi permanent status without prior sanc-tion of the competent authority as may be notified by the Head of Department from time to time. (11). In any event, the Rules of 1964 do not permit any work charged employee to claim either permanent or semi permanent status without prior sanc-tion of the competent authority as may be notified by the Head of Department from time to time. (11). It is further evident from the Rules of 1964 that an appointment on the work charged basis can be made either by promotion or by direct recruitment as per Rule 4(2) and promotions shall be made in accordance with the rules framed by the Head of the Department, as has been provided in Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 1964. As regards seniority, under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1964 it has been contemplated that seniority lists of each category shall be maintained in each unit for purpose of promotions as well as retrenchment. (12). The law has been so well settled by the Apex Court and which has been followed by various High Courts of the Country including this court that the selection committee comprises of body of experts drawn from different methods and are men of eminence and their recommendations are not open to challenge unless there is any arbitrariness writ large on its face. It is further settled law that the Court should normally be slow in interfering in the recommendations of the duly consti-tuted selection committee which has recommended certain candidates for appointment of a particular post and should not substitute its own wisdom over its recommendations for selection. I am fortified in my observations from the decision of the Apex Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K.Kalyana Raman (1), wherein a committee consisting of some experts including the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi as its Chairman was constituted to screen out the candidates and recommend suitable candidates for selection as Professors of the Institute. The said selection committee after interviewing the candidates and assessing their relative merits recommended a panel of names for appointment as Professors of the said Institute. The appointment of one candidate was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate before the High Court of Karnataka by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee on two grounds i.e. : (i) that it was not possible to say on degree of confidence that in Dr. The appointment of one candidate was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate before the High Court of Karnataka by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee on two grounds i.e. : (i) that it was not possible to say on degree of confidence that in Dr. Kalyana Ramans case who was appointed as a Professor of the Institute had received a fair and reasonable consideration at the hands of the Selection Committee, (ii) that the Selection Committee had not given any reasons to establish any rational nexus between the facts said to have been considered by the said Committee and the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the material before it. In appeal before the Apex Court preferred by the Institute it was observed by the Apex Court that though it is well settled that procedural fairness is the important requirement in the administrative action which ought to be observed but since it had not been successfully shown that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical and the facts that the candidate who was appointed had been placed at serial No. 2 in the panels, it-self indicates that he was treated fairly and it was further observed that it must be noted that the function of the selection committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory but purely administrative and since the selections had been made after assessment of relative merit of the rival candidates determined in the course of interview of candidates possessing required eligibility and since there was no rule or Regulation brought to the notice of the Court requiring the Selection Committee to record its reasons, in absence of such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons, cannot be found faulted with. It was further observed by the Apex Court that members of the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject with which they were dealing and being men of high status and of unquestionable impartiality, the court should be slow to interfere with their opinion. The appeal was consequently allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set-aside. (13). Likewise in the matter of Ramswaroop Jat vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2) this Court observed that the petitioners cannot claim an exclusive right of appo-intment at the cost of more meritorious persons. The appeal was consequently allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set-aside. (13). Likewise in the matter of Ramswaroop Jat vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2) this Court observed that the petitioners cannot claim an exclusive right of appo-intment at the cost of more meritorious persons. Interpretation of proviso to Rule 7(3) read with Rule 12 of the Service Rules applications to the petitioners therein came up for consideration and this Court held that these Rules have the force of law and have to be followed in making of recruitment and dealing with the service conditions of the employees appointed to the subordinate service post in various Government Departments. It was further held that it is always open to the Government to decide the question of percentage of recruitment by each method and laid down the qualification for recruitment to the different category of post/posts and that from the perusal of the record, the petitioners qualifications, marks secured by them as well as their additional qualification of Advance Diploma in Rural Tech-nology Development and Management and further taking into consideration additional marks secured by the petitioners for the aforesaid qualification, it was revealed that the petitioners do not come in merit so as to become entitled for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and the petitioners therefore cannot claim any right to be appointed merely because they possess the additional qualification of Advance Diploma Course in Rural Technology Development and Management. Consequently the writ petitions were dismissed on merits. (14). Applying the ratio of principles of law laid down in aforesaid decision, prima-facie I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed since he has failed to show any nexus to connect himself with Lower Division Cle-rks who have been absorbed under the amended Rules after having been declared surplus from other departments. (14). Applying the ratio of principles of law laid down in aforesaid decision, prima-facie I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed since he has failed to show any nexus to connect himself with Lower Division Cle-rks who have been absorbed under the amended Rules after having been declared surplus from other departments. Further the petitioner has already been given benefit of having been appointed as permanent work charged employees of the lrrigation Department on completion of ten years of satisfactory service and this is the maximum benefit to which the petitioner was eligible and which he has already availed of in accordance with the Rules and in fact, the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Munshi Gr.II on daily wages basis for a period of three months, subsequently was declared semi-permanent on completion of two years service as per Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1964. However, the benefit to which the work-charged employees like the petitioner cannot be extended contrary to the Rules because the Rules of 1964 under which his services are governed, do not confer any right on the petitioner or other work-charged employees of the lrrigation Department to claim equation or parity for the service benefits to which the regular employees are entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. The service conditions of the employees of the State Government who are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules and are entitled, are quite different and based on altogether different criteria as compared to the work-charged employees who are governed by the Work-Charged Employees Rules, 1964. Therefore, since the petitioner is work-charged employees of the lrrigation Department, he can only claim benefits with regard to the seniority or promotion which are permissible to other employees of the lrrigation Department but no equivalence by any stretch of imagination can either be claimed statutorily or as of right qua regular employees of the State Government who are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules. (15). (15). As regards contention of the petitioner that he has been denied the bene-fit of regular appointment on the post of LDC ignoring his seniority qua respondent No. 5 and other employees who are declared surplus and thereafter absorbed in other departments as regular employees under the amended Rules in violation of the petitioners seniority, I am of the view that this contention is wholly untenable in view of the fact that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge either process of selection or appointment given in that selection since the same has got no nexus or bearing in the context of the amended Rules as referred to above and therefore, the selection committee of Department of lrrigation which consists of Body of experts has selected and recommended appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of LDC after adjudging his suitability under the amended Rules, as referred to above. It is therefore not open to the petitioner to challenge either process of selection or relevant seniority of the respondent No.5 and other similarly placed employees, who have been appointed by the lrrigation Department on being declared surplus from other departments or by way of direct recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. In my view, the petitioner has failed to show any ma-terial on record from which any arbitrariness can be inferred in the matter of appointment of respondent No.5 or other employees as referred to above. (16). As a result of the above discussion, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed being not maintainable. There would be no order as to costs. _