JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of all these writ petitions are alike, but for convenience I proceed to incorporate concise facts of Ram Singh Gurjar's case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1547/1987. The petitioner Ram Singh Gurjar came to be appointed as Class IV Employee at Govt. Hostel Jaipur. He was subsequently promoted on regular basis as Lower Division Clerk in the quota of 10% posts reserved for class IV Employees. The petitioner Ram Singh was not given to regular increments as he had not passed the type test or efficiency test, but afterwards the State Government had released his increments with effect from May 1. 1979. After the promulgation of the Rajasthan Circuit House Subordinate Service Rules, 1979 (in short the Rules 1979), an order was issued whereby the post of Lower Division Clerk and equivalent post was re-designated as House Keeper. Similarly the post of Senior Receptionist and the Upper Division Clerk was re-designated as Senior House Keeper. The Rules of 1979 also provided that those who are holding the posts in the services of the Circuit Houses as on June 1, 1977 only would be eligible for being considered for screening for the purpose of regular appointment. Subsequently the provisions were amended and Notification dated April 14, 1987 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated April 16, 1987. By this amendment proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1979 was added. This proviso provides that those Lower Division Clerks, who were appointed in the Circuit Houses, Rajasthan House, Bikaner House, Jodhpur House or Government Hostel on adhoc, officiating or temporary basis, in the first instance and who were holding such posts or equivalent posts or higher posts or were working on deputation on the date of promulgation will be screened in judging their suitability provided that they possess the qualifications laid down for direct recruitment or such qualifications on the basis of which these persons were appointed on adhoc or urgent temporary basis. It was also provided that their interse seniority will be determined on the total length of service by a committee and they will rank junior to the persons directly recruited in the year 1986. It was also provided that their interse seniority will be determined on the total length of service by a committee and they will rank junior to the persons directly recruited in the year 1986. On the basis of this screening clause the petitioner was served with a letter dated April 18, 1987 whereby he was called upon to present himself before the Special Secretary, General Administrative Department on April 25, 1987 along with his certificates. He was also called upon to give his option for the Subordinate Circuit House Service, The petitioner gave his option for the Rajasthan Circuit Houses and Subordinate Service in the prescribed form. The petitioner was screened along with others and on the basis of result of screening he was appointed as House Keeper with effect from October 31, 1986 vide order dated April 25, 1987. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of amendment Notification dated April 14, 1987 the petitioner would be placed below the persons appointed as House Keeper by direct recruitment in the year 1986 and qua such direct recruits his entire length of service as Lower Division Clerk from May 1, 1978 would stand reduced to zero. Therefore the petitioner prayed in the writ petition to strike down the afore quoted proviso and also prayed to assign seniority to him according to the length of service in the cadre of House Keepers. 3. Sum and substance of the reply submitted by the respondents is that proviso (4) of Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 was added on the basis of directions issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1986, Keshav Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others along with 10 writ petitions, decided on Nov. 5, 1986. This Court granted two months time for making amendment in the rules and the petitioners in the said writ petitions were allowed minimum pay scale of House Keeper and other allowances till they are screened under the rules to be amended and regularly absorbed or till they appear in the examination after the State Government relaxes the-age in respect of them and selected. It is evident from the record that in the Circuit Houses of the State there were only persons either they were given adhoc appointment without following recruitment procedure or were appointed on daily wages basis. It is evident from the record that in the Circuit Houses of the State there were only persons either they were given adhoc appointment without following recruitment procedure or were appointed on daily wages basis. Amongst them 18 persons were of the period June 1, 1977 to November 30, 1981 and remaining 12 persons were of the period December 1, 1981 to October 31, 1986. The State Government in order to absorb them regularly on the post of House Keeper in the light of the directions given by the afore quoted order of this court dated November 5, 1986, took a decision to make amendment in the Rules of 1979 and added proviso (4) in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 so that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons could be considered for appointment to the post of House Keeper. On the basis of the said proviso the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were regularised by the State Government vide orders dated October 31, 1986 and November 1, 1986. None of the petitioners had challenged their regularisation in any court of law and all the petitioners had taken benefit under the Rules of 1979. The order dated November 5, 1986 passed by this Court was assailed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 151 of 1987, which was decided on May 10, 1988. The Division Bench in the said order had also made observations in regard to amended proviso (4) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 thus - "There is no dispute that in accordance with this direction of the learned Single Judge rules were amended and the persons satisfying the requirement specified in the direction have also been regularised." 4. The order of the Division Bench became final as nobody assailed it. It appears that the petitioner being fully satisfied with the conditions of regularisation as per the amended rules 6(1)(4) submitted his option form and appeared before the Committee for adjudging his suitability under the screening clause 6(1)(4). The services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were regularised with effect from October 31, 1986 on the basis of amended Rule 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1979 whereas the direct recruitment was effected In May, 1986. It is also borne out from the record that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of LDC was purely temporary and ad hoc. It is also borne out from the record that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of LDC was purely temporary and ad hoc. 12 Appeals were filed by the House Keepers appointed through direct recruitment before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur for the reasons that an attempt was made to disturb their seniority. The Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated March 31, 1992 directed the State Government to issue seniority list in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1979. Some of the petitioners have assailed the to order dated March 31, 1992 of the learned Tribunal. 5. The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3902/1992 and the petitioner Girraj Choubey in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4322 of 1992 have also challenged the afore quoted order of the learned Tribunal in addition to other reliefs. 6. The petitioner, Prabodh Chand Kumawat, in S.B. CM Writ Petition No. 2795 of 1994 and the petitioner, Madho Pandaya in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963 of 1994 have assailed the final seniority list dated December 30, 1993. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on Govind Narain v. State of Rajasthan (WLN 1973(1) page 342 . Mr. Prahlad Singh, learned counsel placed reliance on Keshav Deo v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 44 and contended that total period of service rendered by the petitioners should be counted for the purpose of determining the seniority. 8. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel urged that the interest of the affected parties who have not been joined as parties to the writ petitions is being properly and effectively represented by the State. Therefore non-joining of necessary parties is not fatal. Reliance was placed on Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1995 (8) SLR 121 . 9. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 10. In so far as the objection raised in respect of non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, I am of the view that it is not fatal as in some of the writ petitions necessary parties have been added and their interests have been protected by the State. Therefore non-joinder of the parties cannot be treated as fatal defect resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Therefore non-joinder of the parties cannot be treated as fatal defect resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Undeniably, amendment in Rules of 1986 was effected on April 14, 1987 in pursuance to the directions Issued by this Court in S B, Civil Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1986, Keshav Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and 9 other writ petitions decided on November 5, 1986. Relevant portion of the order passed by this court reads: "The Rules came into force in 1979 but still no recruitment to the post of House Keeper was made under the Rules and the appointments were made on daily wages of the petitioners and others on the post of House Keepers. They are continuing on the posts for sufficient time and some for years. The Government, therefore, will reasonably examine the feasibility of amending the Rules to make a provision therein that such of the petitioners and others like them, who have been continuously working for a period of three years as on 1.11.1986 shall be screened and if found suitable and possessing the so qualifications and experience for the posts of House Keepers as laid down in the Schedule, they shall be appointed on regular basis on the post of House Keepers." 12. The order of the learned Single Judge was assailed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 151 of 1987 and the Division Bench vide its order dated May 10, 1988 observed as under "There is no dispute that in accordance with this direction of the learned Single Judge rules were amended and the persons satisfying the requirements specified in the direction have also been regularised." 13. The order/directions of the Division Bench attained finality. It appears that the petitioner had knowledge of the judgments dated November 5, 1986 and May 10, 1988 of this court but they have not made a whisper about to them in the writ petitions. As rule 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1979 was amended in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, it cannot be interfered with. Even otherwise in my considered opinion, the said amendment cannot be termed as unconstitutional. As already stated the direct recruiters were recruited in the month of May 1986 whereas the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from October 31, 1986 and direct recruits shall become senior to the petitioners who were regularised afterwards. Even otherwise in my considered opinion, the said amendment cannot be termed as unconstitutional. As already stated the direct recruiters were recruited in the month of May 1986 whereas the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from October 31, 1986 and direct recruits shall become senior to the petitioners who were regularised afterwards. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners being fully satisfied with the conditions of regularisation as amended by the proviso (4) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 and submitted their options and appeared before the committee for adjudging their suitability in the said screening clause 6(1)(4). The petitioners have not assailed their regularisation orders based on amended clause 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1979. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the amended rules after already taking the benefit of the same. Further this Court vide judgment dated November 5, 1936 has already upheld the selections and appointments of the direct recruiter's, therefore, the petitioners are restrained by law to raise the issues which have already been decided and have attained finality. I do not find any illegality in the order dated March 31, 1992 of the leaned Tribunal. 14. In so far as writ petitions filed by the petitioners, Madho Pandaya and Girraj Choubey, are concerned, they have rushed to this court without approaching the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to grant any relief to them as they have not availed the alternative remedy. 15. in view of what I have discussed here-in-above, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Costs easy.Petitions dismissed. *******