JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was initially appointed as Refrigeration Mechanic in the Animal Husbandry Department on temporary basis on 19.6.1969. The temporary appointment was extended from time to time with concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner was given regular appointment on the post of Refrigeration Mechanic vide order dated 6.11.1973 after due selection by the RPSC and was posted at Government Becan Factory, Alwar. 2. The above factory subsequently came to be transferred to Sheep & Wool Marketing Federation along with its staff and all other assets vide order dated 26.3.1979. The staff was to be sent on deputation with the Federation. 3. The staff of the factory so transferred to the above Federation were required to give their option for the services of the Federation or to be sent back to the department. Since the petitioner did not opt for the services of the Federation, he was sent back to the Animal Husbandry Department. After being declared surplus from the Animal Husbandry Department vide order dated 15.9.1979, the petitioner was directed to report to General Administrative Department for absorption in some other department. 4. The absorption committee of the GAD, on consideration of the matter, sent the petitioner to Transport Department to be absorbed as Transport Inspector. Though the grade of Transport Inspector was lower than that of Refrigeration Mechanic, the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 10.1.1980, joined as Transport Inspector on 11.1.1980 in the Transport Department. 5. Subsequently, provisional seniority list of Transport Inspectors was issued vide order dated 27.1.1983. The name of the petitioner was placed at No. 63. The petitioner submitted his objection. In representation he contended that the seniority should have been assigned in accordance with the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (for short "the Rules of 1969") and he should have been shown junior most permanent employee in the Transport Department as Transport Inspector, whereas, in the provisional seniority list his seniority has been fixed from the date of his absorption. The final seniority list was also published on 20.7.1983 with no change in the status of the petitioner so far as seniority is concerned. 6. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur challenging the final seniority list dated 20.7.1983. The final seniority list was also published on 20.7.1983 with no change in the status of the petitioner so far as seniority is concerned. 6. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur challenging the final seniority list dated 20.7.1983. The Tribunal, vide order dated 19.9.1988, while partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner, held that the petitioner is entitled to be given seniority amongst the Transport Inspectors of the Transport Department in accordance with rule 15(2)(a) of the Rules of 1969 and the respondents were directed to revise the seniority of the petitioner as per the directions referred to above. The order dated 19.9.1988 passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition with a prayer for assigning proper seniority to the petitioner as Transport Inspector above the respondents No. 3 to 25 in the seniority list dated 20.9.1983 in accordance with rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969. 7. The only objection taken on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed on probation though after due selection by the RPSC vide order dated 6.11.1973, the confirmation order was never issued by any of the departments and, as such, the petitioner should have been treated as temporary and cannot be given the status of a substantive employee. The benefit of rule 15(1) can only be given to the substantive employees. 8. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned order of the Tribunal and also the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1969. 9. Thee is no dispute that the petitioner was given regular appointment as Refrigeration Mechanic vide order dated 6.11.1973 after due selection by the RPSC. Since the selection was made through the RPSC under the provisions of the Rules, the appointment can well be presumed to be on substantive basis. In the order dated 5.9.1979, by which the petitioner was sent to GAD for absorption in another department after having been declared surplus, it has clearly been stated that the petitioner was working in the animal Husbandry Department since 19.6.1969 on permanent basis before he was sent to the Federation. It is not known as to how the Tribunal presumed the services of the petitioner as temporary in the Animal Husbandry Department. 10. It is not known as to how the Tribunal presumed the services of the petitioner as temporary in the Animal Husbandry Department. 10. In my opinion, the present matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in case of " Bhanwar Lal Malakar Vs. State of Rajasthan & others" [ 1990(1) RLR 576 =1991(1) WLC 1-181 , in which, while referring to various decisions of this court, it has been held that in such appointments after due process of selection in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, the person should be treated as substantive appointee and even substantive appointment on temporary basis should be considered for the purpose of seniority while considering the case of an employee under the Rules of 1969. 11. In the present matter, as has come on record, the petitioner has been given substantive appointment on permanent basis in the Animal Husbandry Department. On being declared surplus and having been absorbed in the Transport Department on the post of Transport Inspector, the petitioner is entitled for seniority on the post of Transport Inspector, in the Transport Department, as per the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1969. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the judgment dated 19.9.1988, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to revise the seniority list dated 20.7.1983 on the post of Transport Inspector in accordance with the provisions of rule 15(1), treating appointment of the petitioner as substantive in the Animal Husbandry Department w.e.f. 6.11.1973 when he was given regular appointment on the post of Refrigeration Mechanic after due selection by the RPSC. It is further held that the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits after revision of the above seniority. Necessary orders in regard to revision of seniority and other consequential benefits be passed by the respondent No. 1 within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******