Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1202 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Audichya & 7 Anr.

2003-08-27

PRAKASH TATIA, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals arise out of the common order dated 14.9.2001 passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur disposing of appeals No. 77. 12000 to 782/2000 which includes the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 1 which the appellants before the Tribunal were granted the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years service from the date when they 5 Were put in minimum of pay scale i.e. from 13.8.1987 instead of computing 9 years from the date on which their services were regularised after passing the proficiency test. On finding that the initial appointment was by way of regular process of selection. having called their names from Employment Exchange and from Social Welfare Department of the State and after holding 10 the type test and interview, the appointments have been made against the vacant posts. The regular appointments were not offered only because of awaiting for making absorption of some surplus employees against such posts. 2. Aggrieved with the order of Tribunal nine writ petitions were filed by the State, which were dismissed by making reference to Pushplata Thada's 15 case 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 560 . The State has filed appeals in all the nine cases. One of the appeals D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 141/2002 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 404/2002, State of Rajasthan v. Sundar Lal Paliwal was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.10.2002. It agreed with the learned Single Judge that the controversy 20 involved in this case is fully covered by the decision of Smt. Pushplata Thada's case. The review petition against the said judgment has also been dismissed by us today by the separate judgment. 3. In view of the aforesaid, following the decision of this Court in D.B. Cis t Special Appeal No. 141 of 2002 decided on 17.10.2002 these appeals 25 are also dismissed. 4. No order as to costs.Appeals Dismissed. *******