Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-This petition is directed against order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure 3) of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (Annexure 13), so also assailing vires of Proviso (4) to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Rajasthan Circuit Houses Subordinate Service Rules, 1979 ("Rules 1979"). 2. In all 12 appeals were decided by the Tribunal by common order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure 13), against which a bunch of writ petitions were filed. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court, while upholding validity of Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979, dismissed all writ petitions including instant petition vide order dated 19.08.1999, and upheld order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure 13) of the Tribunal. However, the petitioner preferred review petition and pointed out the fact that present petition was arising out of order of the Tribunal, and observations made by this Court in Para 14, "Madho Pandaya & Girraj Choubey have rushed to this Court without approaching the Tribunal", require reconsideration. Taking note of this fact, review petition No. 58/1999 was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2003. Hence, this writ petition stood restored to its original number and have come up for hearing. 3. Case of petitioner is that he was initially appointed as LDC vide order dated 011.1979 (Annexure 1) on ad hoc basis for three months, which was extended from time to time and during which he faced regular selection for the post of LDC, held by Rajasthan Public Service Commission and after his selection, he was appointed as LDC in Circuit House, Bhilwara vide order dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure 3) and was confirmed with effect from 011.1979 vide order dated 25.02.1983 (Annexure 5). At that time, there were no rules to govern service conditions of employees of Circuit Houses. Therefore, State Government, in exercise of its powers under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, framed rules regulating recruitment to posts included in the Schedule and the conditions of service of persons appointed to rules, vide Notification published in Rajasthan Rajpatra on 20.11.1979. It is pertinent to point out that in the Scheme of Rules, 1979, no post of LDC was included in Schedule appended to Rules, 1979 and thus there were no provisions to regulate service conditions of persons working as LDC on ad hoc or temporary basis in Circuit Houses of State Government. It is pertinent to point out that in the Scheme of Rules, 1979, no post of LDC was included in Schedule appended to Rules, 1979 and thus there were no provisions to regulate service conditions of persons working as LDC on ad hoc or temporary basis in Circuit Houses of State Government. Therefore, bunch of writ petitions were filed before this Court, which were partly allowed vide order dated 011.1986 (CWP No. 1096/1986 & (9) Others), wherein respondents were directed to examine feasibility of amending the rules to make a provision that such of petitioners and others like them who have been continuously working for a period of three years as on 011.1986 shall be screened and if bound suitable and possessing qualifications and experiences for the post of House Keepers as laid down in the Schedule, they shall be appointed on regular basis. In deference to aforesaid directions of this Court, State Government inserted Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979 vide Notification dated 14.04.1987 (Annexure R-1) which is reproduced as follows:- "After Proviso (3) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the said rules the following new proviso shall be added, namely:-"(4) that the persons who were initially appointed to the posts of Lower Division Clerks on ad hoc, officiating or temporary basis in the Circuit Houses or Rajasthan House or Bikaner House or Jodhpur House, New Delhi or Government Hostel, Jaipur during the period from 1st June, 1977 to 1st December, 1981 and were continuously working on such posts or equivalent or higher posts or are on deputation, on the date of publication of this amendment and who opt the service shall be screened for the post of House keeper by the Committee referred to in Rule 24(6) for adjudging their suitability provided they possess the qualifications prescribed in these rules for direct recruitment or the prescribed qualifications on the basis of which they were appointed on ad hoc or urgent temporary basis. The seniority, inter se of these persons shall be fixed by the Committee on the basis of length of continuous service in ad hoc or urgent temporary capacity and these persons shall be placed below the persons appointed by direct recruitment in the year, 1986." 4. The seniority, inter se of these persons shall be fixed by the Committee on the basis of length of continuous service in ad hoc or urgent temporary capacity and these persons shall be placed below the persons appointed by direct recruitment in the year, 1986." 4. In view of aforesaid amended Proviso (4), options were called for from such employees who were working in office of respondents and, therefore, petitioner also furnished his option on 25.04.1987 (Annexure R-1/3) to become member of the service of Rules, 1979. In view of options furnished by incumbents, they were screened in terms of aforesaid notification dated 14.05.1987, vide order dated 25.04.1987 (Annexure 7) and accordingly he was appointed as House keeper with effect from 310.1986 alongwith similarly placed persons - of whom provisional seniority list (Annexure 9) was published in terms of proviso to Rule 6 (1) of Rules, 1979 on 25.02.1988. 5. Case of petitioner is that he submitted objections to provisional seniority list (Annexure 9) to the State Government and inter alia submitted that his appointed on the post of LDC which was by virtue of his regular selection through RPSC vide order dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure 4) was substantive appointment as such he could not be subjected to screening under Proviso (4) to Rule 6 (1) of Rules, 1979 introduced by amending notification dated 14.04.1987. Such objections were also raised by other employees who were claiming their appointment substantive in office of respondents. State Government accepted their contentions and after treating them to be substantively appointed on their respective post held, granted them exemption from screening vide order dated 07.01.1989 (Annexure 11) and accordingly while issuing final seniority list (Annexure 12) dated 09.01.1989, petitioner and other similarly placed employees who are named in Annexure 11, were placed above in final seniority list coupled with those who were appointed by direct recruitment in 1986. 6. However, their placement above direct recruits in final seniority list dated 09.01.1989 (Annexure 12) was challenged by 12 direct recruits before the Tribunal by filing 12 appeals impleading petitioner as respondent No. 14. 6. However, their placement above direct recruits in final seniority list dated 09.01.1989 (Annexure 12) was challenged by 12 direct recruits before the Tribunal by filing 12 appeals impleading petitioner as respondent No. 14. The Tribunal after examining controversy recorded a finding that initial appointment of petitioner so also of other respondents in appeal, were not substantive in character and which was not in accordance with Rule 7 read with Rule 25 of Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 and after the Rules, 1979 came into force with effect from 20.11.1979, appointment could have been made only as per procedure laid down under the Scheme of Rules, 1979 and according to the Tribunal, petitioner was not appointed under Scheme of Rules, 1979 and while he was appointed as LDC in 1981 there was no post of LDC included in Schedule to Rules, 1979. 7. Tribunal also observed that petitioner and others submitted option in terms of Proviso (4) to Rules 6(1) of Rules, 1979 - and according to which they were considered eligible for screening for the post of House Keeper by the Committee referred to in Rule 24(6) and after being screened, their inter se seniority was accordingly fixed on the basis of length of continuous service in ad hoc or urgent temporary capacity and were placed below persons appointed by direct recruitment in the year 1986, and the learned Tribunal finally allowed all appeals vide order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure 13) and set aside final seniority list dated 09.01.1989 (Annexure 12) with the direction to issue fresh seniority list in accordance with Rules, 1979. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Against aforesaid order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure 13), few of incumbents directly approached this Court assailing validity of amended Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979. While upholding vires of aforesaid proviso inserted vide notification dated 14.04.1987, this Court dismissed such other writ petitions vide order dated 19.07.1999. 9. Shri Prahlad Singh, Counsel for petitioner urged that facts of case of petitioner are slightly distinct than others examined by this Court vide order dated 19.07.1999. While upholding vires of aforesaid proviso inserted vide notification dated 14.04.1987, this Court dismissed such other writ petitions vide order dated 19.07.1999. 9. Shri Prahlad Singh, Counsel for petitioner urged that facts of case of petitioner are slightly distinct than others examined by this Court vide order dated 19.07.1999. His main thrust is that appointment of petitioner as LDC vide order dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure 4) was substantive in nature especially in view of his confirmation in the cadre vide order dated 25.02.1983 (Annexure 5) which was made effective from 011.1979 and he became member of service of the Rules, 1979, and, therefore, he could not have been subjected to screening under Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1), which was inserted by amendment notification dated 14.04.1987, and being substantive in the cadre of LDC, respondents committed error in placing him below direct recruits of 1986 and his placement in seniority qua respondents 4 to 17 as ordered by Tribunal to be placed below them is not legally sustainable. 10. Shri Prahlad Singh further urged that the petitioner is not covered by Proviso (4) added by Notification dated 14.04.1987 to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979, since it covers only such LDCs who were working on ad hoc or officiating basis during period from 01.06.1977 to 012.1981 and who were continuously working on such posts or equivalent or higher posts or are on deputation. But petitioner being substantive in cadre of LDC, decision of respondents to make him member of service under Rules, 1979, by screening was erroneous and even otherwise as per total length of service rendered by him in the cadre, he is entitled to be senior to those who are direct recruits being appointed as House keepers in 1986 much after his substantive appointment, supra, and in this view of matter, finding recorded by the Tribunal for assigning his seniority qua respondents 4 to 17 is contrary to service jurisprudence. 11. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General supported the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in its order dated 31.03.1992. However, Shri Gill urged that admittedly, insertion of Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979 by Notification dated 14.04.1987 was made in deference to directions issued by this Court in its order dated 011.1986 in CWP No. 1098/1986 & (9) others (Keshav Sharma & Ors. However, Shri Gill urged that admittedly, insertion of Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979 by Notification dated 14.04.1987 was made in deference to directions issued by this Court in its order dated 011.1986 in CWP No. 1098/1986 & (9) others (Keshav Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan), inasmuch as even its validity was also examined and upheld by this Court vide order dated 19.07.1999 in CWP No. 1547/1987 (Ram Singh Gurjar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan). Therefore, so far as vires of Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1) of Rules, 1979 are concerned, the controversy stands decided by Co-ordinate bench of this Court. 12. Shri Gill, Counsel for respondent State contended that after Rules, 1979 came into force with effect from 20.11.1979, no such substantive appointment on the post of LDC could be made particularly when such post does not exist or included in Schedule appended to Rules, 1979, and merely because petitioner participated in process of selection through RPSC for the post of LDC will not give him any right to hold the post in substantive capacity in office of respondent. That apart, all such employees who were working prior to enactment of Rules, 1979, on ad hoc/temporary/officiating basis does not confer any legal right, itself , to get change of their appointment in the cadre of House keepers. According to respondents, appointment of petitioner cannot be said to be substantive. 13. Shri V.B. Srivastava, Counsel for private respondent No. 10 supported the submission made by Counsel for the State. Shri Srivastava further added that appointment of petitioner in no manner can be said to be substantive in the year 1981 particularly there was no such post being included in the Scheme of Rules, 1979, and so far as his confirmation in cadre of LDC with effect from 011.1979 as ordered by Manager Circuit House is concerned, it is apparently contrary to the Scheme of Rules, 1979, and even as per petitioners own case, if his appointment as LDC is of 1981, which he claims to be substantive, he could not have been confirmed a date prior to his substantive appointment. 14. Having considered rival contentions of parties and perused material on record, I find that it is not in dispute that amendment was made vide Notification dated 14.04.1987 pursuant to decision dated 011.1986 of this Court in Keshav Sharma & Ors. 14. Having considered rival contentions of parties and perused material on record, I find that it is not in dispute that amendment was made vide Notification dated 14.04.1987 pursuant to decision dated 011.1986 of this Court in Keshav Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, (Supra) and in terms thereof , all such employees who were working as LDC on ad hoc or temporary basis, were called for their options and in compliance thereof , their services were screened for the post of House Keeper by Committee, referred to in Rule 24(6) for adjudging their suitability, and those, who were found suitable by screening committee were made members of the service of Rulse, 1979. Petitioner is also one of them, who submitted his option (Annexure R-1/3) and appeared before the Committee constituted for screening under Notification dated 14.04.1987 and after being screened, became member of the service of Rules, 1979 and held the post of House Keeper in view of order dated 012.1981 (Schedule A), whereby post of LDC was redesignated of House Keeper. 15. Contention made by Counsel for petitioner that his appointment as LDC, on which he jointed on 02.03.1981 was substantive and he was entitled for exemption from screening under Proviso (4) to Rules 6(1) of Rules, 1979 (Supra), in my opinion, is without any substance. After Rules, 1979 came into force with effect from 20.11.1979, no such appointment on substantive basis on the post of LDC could have been made since such a post is not included in schedule appended to Rules, 1979 and all such LDCS who were working in between 01.06.1977 and 012.1981, were considered for screening by virtue of Notification dated 14.04.1987 as a result of insertion of Proviso (4) to Rule 6(1), keeping in view options already offered by them to the Government for the post of House Keeper and only by virtue of screening, petitioner became member of service of Rules, 1979, therefore, in my option his appointment in the cadre of LDC even on the basis of his selection through RPSC will not give him a right of substantive appointment in the service under scheme of Rules, 1979, hence I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 16. 16. Stress laid down by Counsel that the petitioner was confirmed in the cadre of LDC with effect from 011.1979 which strengthens his case of substantive appointment, in my opinion, is devoid of any merit, when there is no post of LDC included in Rules, 1979. Question of being confirmed on the post of LDC, does not arise and further when petitioner himself claimed his appointment of substantive in nature vide order dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure 4), there cannot be confirmation from the date on which he indisputably was working purely on ad hoc basis in the cadre of LDC, thus in my opinion, his confirmation in the cadre of LDC as referred to in order dated 25.02.1983 (Annexure 5) with effect from 011.1979, will be of no assistance to him for seeking exemption from screening under the garb of his appointment being substantive. 17. That apart, petitioner, himself , has submitted his application for option to become member of the service of Rules, 1979, by way of screening as introduced in view of Notification dated 14.04.1987. Once he got, himself , screened by submitted option under Notification dated 14.04.1987 in terms of amended provisions of Rules, 1979, in my opinion now he is estopped of claiming exemption from screening (Supra). 18. Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.