JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these appeals raise a common question and arise out of separate orders, but all follow the principal judgment delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 286/2004 (State of Raj. & Anr. v. Thomas Mathew, decided on 19th February, 2004) . The other orders have been passed on 4th March, 2004 following the decision rendered in Thomas Mathew's case end we have heard these appeals together and propose to decide all these appeals simultaneously by this order. 3. In these cases, the respondents, who are Lower Division Clerks in the Irrigation Department, had been appointed on temporary basis between to 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1980. The appointment had been made on urgent temporary basis under the orders of the State Govt. dated 28th August, 1978. which reveal that considering the fact that under the offices of different Chief Engineers of Irrigation Department, 517 posts of LDCs were lying vacant since April, 1978 and considering 118 posts of LDCs likely to fall vacant in different offices due to promotions of LDCs to UDCs during next 12 months determined 635 existing vacancies, which were required to be filled at that time. It was thought in the interest of department and public considering that since regular permanent appointment the recruitment procedure under the rules then existing would take time and departmental work be not hampered that these posts of LOCs be tilled temporarily until the selected candidates by RPSC are available to the department. In pursuance of this recommendation, directions were issued to till in the aforesaid posts on urgent temporary basis at the level of Superintending Engineers concerned at different offices. 4. By yet another order dated 28.9.78, the like opportunity to be recruited on temporary basis from those temporary employees who were working at the work-charged establishments was also laid open. 5. While directing to fill in the existing permanent vacancies on urgent temporary basis, the procedure of selection for giving temporary appointment was also set out in the communication dated 28th August, 1978 which was also extended to be applied to those work-charged employees who were desirous of availing this opportunity for temporary recruitment to the service, It is also not in dispute that all the respondents were appointed after getting through the selection process for making recruitment on urgent temporary basis. 6. 6. It may be noticed here that Rule 26(3) of the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (in short "the Rules of 1957") permits this course to be adopted enabling the State Government or the Appointing Authorities by appointing temporarily thereto a person/persons eligible for direct recruitment to the service where such direct recruitment has been provided under the Rules. Thus, temporary appointment of the petitioners was on the available permanent vacancies in existing subordinate service under the offices of Irrigation Department under the Rules of 1957 albeit on temporary basis. 7. It may be noticed that primarily the recruitment to the post of LDCs is required to be filled by direct recruitment through competitive examination to be conducted by R.PS.C. as per Rule 7(1)(b). However, the amendments have been made from time to time in the Recruitment Rules of 1957 providing for making those persons permanent who have been recruited temporarily to the service under the Rules by providing a separate method. 8. For the present purposes. sub-rule (5) was added to Rule 25 vide Notification dated 13.5.81, which reads as under: (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7 all persons working as Lower Division Clerks during the period from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1980 on ad hoc basis and who could not appear in or pass the competitive/qualifying examination held by the Commission as yet, shall on availability of permanent vacancies, be made permanent subject to the condition that they pass a Performance Test conducted by the Head of the Department concerned in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in Part-IV of Schedule-I such person shall be allowed three chances to pass the said Test: Provided that if a person fails to pass the said Test in three chances he shall be liable to be removed from the service- (i) by giving him one month's notice if he has served temporarily in connection with the affairs of the State for less than three years, and (ii) by following procedure as laid down in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. if he has served for more than three years. 9. if he has served for more than three years. 9. In furtherance of this Rules, the respondents, who were appointed temporarily in the subordinate service between 1.4.78 to 31.3.1980 after passing the Performance Test conducted by the respective Head of the I Department concerned, were made permanent against the vacancies against which they were appointed temporarily on different dates. 10. Like provision had earlier been made by inserting sub-rule (3) in Rule 7 for making permanent those who had been appointed on temporary basis between 8.11.75 to 31.3.78. 11. The question of grant of benefit of selection scale to stagnated employees in terms of Govt. Order dated 25.1.92 is to be examined in the above context, which is the subject matter of these proceedings. 12. The Government issued the order dated 25.1.92 prescribing the to selection grades in Class-IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and for those holding isolated posts and their fixation in the selection grade so prescribed. The relevant provision of the order, which concerns these appeals, reads as under: "The matter has been considered and in suppression of all orders is issued in this regard in the past, the Governor has been pleased to order that the Government servants of the categories mentioned hereunder and who are drawing pay in the pay scales prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1939 may be granted selection Grades as indicated below: 1. This order shall be applicable to ail Government Servants in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services, and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in Revised Pay Scales, 1989. The maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 3200/-. This order shall not apply to Government servants in the State services as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1958 and to those who have got selection grade of Rs. 2200-4000 in terms of this order. 2. (i) The first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 9 years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. 1958 and to those who have got selection grade of Rs. 2200-4000 in terms of this order. 2. (i) The first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 9 years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. (ii) The second selection grade shall be granted from the day following the deb' on which one completes the service of 18 years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first selection grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. (iii) The third selection scale shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes the service of 27 years provided that the employee has not got third promotion earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second selection grade granted to him, as the case may be, was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. 3. The service of 9, 18 or 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules: 13. The aforesaid provision reveals a scheme, which is popularly known as 9, 18 and 27 year rule providing the first, second and third selection grade to an incumbent in class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services where he has not received any promotion during that period. If as on the date an incumbent has completed 9 years of services in his first appointment without receiving any promotion, he becomes entitled to grant of first selection grade in terms of Para 1 quoted above. The second selection grade is to be granted to an incumbent who completes 18 years of services if he had not got two promotions earlier as might be available in existing cadre and the aforesaid first selection grade granted to him was lower than the pay-scale 2200-4000. Likewise, third selection grade is available on completion of 27 years of services provided that an employee has not got his third promotion earlier as might be available to him in existing cadre. 14. Likewise, third selection grade is available on completion of 27 years of services provided that an employee has not got his third promotion earlier as might be available to him in existing cadre. 14. Para 3 provides for the computation of period of 9, 18 or 27 years lo as the case may be with effect from the first appointment in the existing cadre or in existing service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. Significantly, Para 3 does not make any distinction between the first recruitment under the rules whether it is by way of substantive appointment or by way of temporary appointment against the permanent or temporary vacancies. 15. By operating the aforesaid order dated 25.1.92, the respondents, LDCs were given the second selection grade by different orders, on completion of 18 years of services from the date of their first appointment which were made under the Rules of 1957 after determining the existing vacancies. 16. However, subsequent to grant of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of services by order dated 3.4.2001, the directions were issued that those LDCs have been given the benefit. of Govt. order dated 25.1.92 with effect from the date of their first appointment following the decision of this Court as well as the orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, is required to be modified inter alia on the ground that for grant of the selection grade eligible period of 9, 18 and 27 years is to be counted with effect from the date of regular appointment and not from any earlier date. Consequently, it was also directed that any benefit given from an earlier date, may be withdrawn by modifying the respective orders postponing the date of grant of selection grade by computing the period of 9 and 18 years or 27 years with effect from the regular appointment. Any amount paid for any time anterior to that was also ordered to be recovered from them. 17. This led to filing of different appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on different dates by the affected LDCs, who constituted the same class having obtained the benefit of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of services from the date of their first recruitment on temporary basis as aforesaid in the Irrigation Department. 18. 17. This led to filing of different appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on different dates by the affected LDCs, who constituted the same class having obtained the benefit of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of services from the date of their first recruitment on temporary basis as aforesaid in the Irrigation Department. 18. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12th June, 2002 after considering the aforesaid facts found that under the order dated 25.1.92, the period of 9, 18 and 27 years is to be computed with effect from the first appointment and not from the date of passing the proficiency test and therefore, the order dated 3.4.2001 was held to be invalid. It was also found with reference to Rule 25(3) and 25(5) that it was a process of confirmation and not process of recruiting those who have already been recruited temporarily to the service and it was not process of giving regular appointment thereafter. 19. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, separate writ petitions were filed by the present appellants. 20. The learned Single Judge by detailed order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 286/2004, State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Thomas Mathew agreed with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal and dismissed by the writ petition filed by the present appellants. Subsequently, other petitions were 1 so dismissed following the first judgment. Hence, these appeals. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants invites our attention to the order dated 12th August, 1998 informing the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department in respect of grant of selection grade to LDCs, who have been appointed between 1975 to 1980 on temporary basis and were made permanent in terms of Rule 25(3) and Rule 25(5) of the Rules of 1957 and directed that the services of those LDCs shall be considered regular only with effect from the date they were regularised under the aforesaid rules and their services prior to that shall not be considered eligible for grant of selection grade. 22. The fetter dated 12th August, 1998 on which reliance has been p aced by the learned counsel for the appellants, in our opinion, cannot hold water to control ambit and scope of order dated 25.1.92. The impugned order dated 3.4.2001 has been issued subsequent to interpretation of relevant order issued by the Govt. by decisions of this Court time and again. The impugned order dated 3.4.2001 has been issued subsequent to interpretation of relevant order issued by the Govt. by decisions of this Court time and again. It was adventurous on the part of the respondents to issue these directions when the impugned order dated 3.4.2001 itself opened with acknowledgement that selection grade was granted to the respondents, LOCs on completing 9 and 18 years of services respectively in accordance with the judgments of this Court. If it was known to the respondents that the matter has already been adjudicated upon by this Court and they have followed that decision by gutting the selection scale to the LDCs in question in accordance with the legal position explained by this Court, it could not have been nullified by administrative orders passed by the respondents. This practice of overreaching the judgments of this Court without removing the basis on which the earlier orders were founded though appropriate legislative pleasures needs to be strongly deprecated. it must be understood clearly that the interpretation of Palos. laws or the orders issued by the State Govt. if they have been subjected to adjudication by this Court and interpretation has been given by this Court, the administrative interpretation put by the authorities cannot prevail resulting info nullification of the judgments of the Courts. The supremacy of adjudication in the matter of litigated subject ought to be maintained, if rule of law is to prevail. 23. In the present case, while noticing the facts, it has been noticed as that the first appointments were given between 1978 to 1930 to the incumbents in question was clearly under the rules and not de-hors the rules The relevant rules provide not only for any recruitment substantively to the vacant post, but also envisage the recruitment to the vacant posts on temporary basis if the circumstances so warrant. If subsequent thereto they have been confirmed by resorting to rules whether as originally framed or by amending the rules specifically for confirming the temporary recruited hands bi providing a separate procedure for such confirmation, the appointment at no stage can be said to be irregular or de-hors the rules so as to fall beyond the purview of Para 3 of the order dated 25.1.92. 24. 24. At the cost of repetition, we focus our attention to the fact that Para 3 of the order dated 25.1.92 refers to "first appointment in the existing service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules". It does not further classify that first appointment under rules has to be on substantive basis against the permanent posts. If temporary appointment is given under the recruitment rules after regular selection which later fructify into the permanent appointment also under the rules meant for confirming the temporary hands by framing the specific rules, the first appointment date cannot be postponed for the purpose of operating Para 3 of the order dated 25.1.92. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that first appointment made in pursuance of directions issued by the Govt. after determining the existing permanent vacancy as per rules, to fill in the existing vacancies, 635 in number, by having recourse to urgent temporary appointment in accordance with special recruitment procedure set out for the purpose. It is permissible under Rule 26(3) of the Rules of 1957 to which we have already adverted to. It was, thereafter, by amending successively Rule 25 by inserting and substituting firstly the sub-rule (3) vide Notification dated 28.1.78 and 31.3,80 and subsequently by inserting sub-rule (5) vide Notification dated 13.5.81 LDCs appointed between 1.4.73 to 31st March, 1980 were to be made permanent on their passing Performance Test. It is significant to notice the rules framed under 309 which are legislative in nature, in contrast to that expression used elsewhere have not used the term 'recruitment' against permanent posts, but deliberately the term used is that "their status as temporary shall be made permanent on passing the Performance Test." This, in our opinion, should have been given quietus to this controversy about the date of the first appointment in the existing service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. So far as the present cases are concerned, it could not have been postponed to a later date than initial appointment on urgent temporary basis. 25. The matter firstly received attention of this Court in Pushplata Thada & 41 Ors. So far as the present cases are concerned, it could not have been postponed to a later date than initial appointment on urgent temporary basis. 25. The matter firstly received attention of this Court in Pushplata Thada & 41 Ors. v. State & Ors., 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 560 wherein a Division Bench of the Court has taken the view that for the grant of scales under Notification dated 25.1.92 entire service period is to be counted including the services rendered on adhoc and temporary basis. We are informed that the Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently thereto, in another judgment of Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was member, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 152/2002, State of Raj. & Anr. v. Sohanlal & Anr., decided on 14th May, 2004 , the Court followed the decision rendered in Pushplata Thada's case (supra). While following the decision rendered in Pushplata Thada's case (supra), the Division Bench also 36 referred to decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Chandra Shekhar & Anr., decided on 27th September, 2001 quoting the following observations from the judgment of the Supreme Court in an appeal arising from judgment of this Court, affirming the order with a speaking order: "The High Court has examined this aspect of the matter and has found that they had been appointed to a particular post which carries a time scale pay. If that is so, if the benefits arising therein granting the Increments had been given, we do not think there is any infirmity in the order made by the High Court." 26. Following the aforesaid two decisions and in view of discussions made above, these appeals must fail and are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeals Dismissed. *******