JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.6.2003 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunary"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as untrained Patwari on 2.2.1967 on temporary basis, whereas wider the relevant Service Rules. one who has qualified in Patwari Examination can only be regularly appointed as Patwari. 3. The respondent No. 1 passed the Patwari Examination on 3.10.1968. Thereafter his services were regularised vide order dated 14.11.1970 w.e.f. 4.9.1970. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that the State Government issued a notification dated 25.1.1992 providing for grant of selection grade to the Government employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The respondent No. 1 was also granted 3rd selection grade on completion of 27 years of service by order dated 2.7.1994 w.e.f. 2.2.1994 reckoning his services from the date of initial appointment. 5. It has also been alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition that since the respondent No. 1 passed the Patwari examination only on 3.10.1968, therefore, his services for the purpose of grant of selections grade shall be counted from 3.10.1968 and not prior to that. Accordingly, the Commissioner by his order dated 16.2.1999 (Annex. 1) amended the order dated 2.7.1994 and granted the selection grade to the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 3.10.1995 instead of 2.2.1994. Vide order dated 16 2.1999, recovery of excess amount paid to the respondent No. 1 on account of grant of 3rd selection grade wrongly was also ordered to be made. 6. Against the order dated 16.2.1999 (Annex. 1), the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal. 7. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 17.6.2002 (Annex. 3) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 holding that services of the respondent No. 1 for the grant of selection grade shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 2.2.1967 and not from the date of passing of Patwari Examination i.e. 3.10.1968. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire material available on record. 9. It is an admitted position on record that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Patwari vide order dated 2.2.1967 under the relevant service Rules. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire material available on record. 9. It is an admitted position on record that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Patwari vide order dated 2.2.1967 under the relevant service Rules. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 passed the Patwari Examination on 3.10.1968. He was granted 3rd selection grade on completion of 27 years of service vice order dated 2.7.1994 w.e.f. 2.2.1994 counting his services from the date of initial appointment i.e. 2.2.1967. However, the order dated 2.7.1994 was later on amended and the respondent No. 1 was granted selection grade counting his services from the date of passing of Patwari examination i.e. 3.10.1968 and recovery of excess amount paid to the respondent No. 1 was ordered. 10. The controversy involved in the instant petition regarding grant of selection grade was set at rest by the larger bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Farooq Ahmed and ors. reported in 2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) 1 . In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Farooq Ahmed (supra), the larger Bench of this Court has observed that where a person is appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis in accordance with Rules and in time-scale, period of ad hoc/temporary services rendered by him before his regularisation should be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 11. The Larger Bench while dealing with the fact of that case also interpreted "Regular Appointment' and observed as under:- "... to mean an appointment in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules to the post. In other words, if the appointment was in accordance with the rules, it was to be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Thus, "Regular appointment whether temporary/ ad hoc or of any nature, in order to be rules." 12. This fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Since the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely, covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Farooq Ahmed (supra) therefore, the present writ petition has no force and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******