ORDER 1. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN HAS FILED CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6433 OF 1998 QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY WHICH DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT AND FURTHER DIRECTING FOR PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF PAY ACCORDINGLY ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% PER ANNUM. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20522 OF 1998 IS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT CHALLENGING THE SAME ORDER TO THE EXTENT HE IS AGGRIEVED I.E. THE ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM AND ALSO ORDERING FOR ENQUIRY. 2. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ON EITHER SIDE AND AFTER PERUSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS WELL AS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS RAISED DO NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE BY US IN THESE MATTERS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT, AS ORDERED BY THE HIGH COURT, FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% OF ARREARS OF SALARY NEED TO BE MODIFIED. AS PER GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 15-3-1978 (ANNEXURE P-5), IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION FROM THE DATE HE PASSED THE SPEED TEST FOR STENOGRAPHY AND TYPING, WHICH TEST HE PASSED ON 7-11-1978. PARA 2 OF THE SAID GOVERNMENT ORDER READS: "ALL STENOGRAPHERS GRADE II APPOINTED ON AN AD HOC BASIS PRIOR TO 1-1-1976 WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY NO. 1 ABOVE, MAY BE TREATED AS REGULARLY APPOINTED IN SERVICE ON THEIR PASSING SPEED TEST TO BE HELD BY AN INSTITUTION TO BE PRESCRIBED AT THE STANDARDS FOR HINDI AND ENGLISH STENOGRAPHY AND TYPING PRESCRIBED FOR THE HIGHER SECONDARY BOARD EDUCATION EXAMINATION." 3. HAVING REGARD TO PARA 2 OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE THINK THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION ONLY FROM 7-11-1978 AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT PASS THE SAID TEST FROM A GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED INSTITUTE. HAVING REGARD TO PARA 2 OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE THINK THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION ONLY FROM 7-11-1978 AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT PASS THE SAID TEST FROM A GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED INSTITUTE. DEALING WITH THIS CONTENTION, LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS WELL AS THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, PARTICULARLY TAKING NOTE OF THE LETTERS WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE RESPONDENT THAT HE COULD TAKE EXAMINATION FROM ALL LANGUAGES SHORTHAND INSTITUTE, AJMER, TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RESPONDENT ACTED BONA FIDE ON THOSE LETTERS. LOOKING TO THIS FINDING AND THAT TOO AT THIS LENGTH OF TIME WHEN THE RESPONDENT JOINED THE SERVICE IN THE YEAR 1975, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS. SIMILARLY, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND ENQUIRY ORDERED AGAINST HIM ARE UNACCEPTABLE AS THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, HAVING EXAMINED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN THAT REGARD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT SHALL STAND REGULARISED FROM 7-11-1978 AND THE RESPONDENT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST ON ARREARS OF SALARY. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED. NO COSTS.