JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation under advertisement Anx.1 bearing No.70/2000-2001 invited applications from the eligible candidates to prepare a penal for recruiting drivers. As per condition No.3 of the advertisement the persons employed from the penal shall be entitled for a fixed salary of Rs. 2100/- per month for first year of their service, and then for a sum of Rs. 150/- per month in addition to the fixed salary of Rs. 2100/- in the second year of service, and a sum of Rs. 200/- with fixed salary of Rs. 2100/- in third year of service. On completion of three years of service the drivers employed shall be fixed in regular pay scale. 2. The petitioners faced process of selection and they were placed on the penal of selected incumbents. By different orders appointments were accorded to them in the year 2001 and 2002. In accordance with the condition No.3 of the advertisement the respondents in the year 2006 allowed regular pay scales to the petitioners Pratap Singh, Chain Singh and Shiv Narayan. The regular pay scale was allowed to the petitioners Chena Ram, Ganpat Ram, Jai Prakash and Teja Ram in the year 2007 on completion of three years of service. 3. The order impugned dated 4.8.2007 then was passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Nagaur Depot, Nagaur defixing the petitioners from regular pay scales and by awarding a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as consolidated salary to them for a period of two years. 4. While questioning correctness of the order dated 4.8.2007, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that as per condition No.3 of the advertisement regular pay scale was allowed to the petitioners on completion of three years of service and as such there is no just and valid reason to withdraw the same. The allegation of the violation of the principles of natural justice is also made on the count that the order impugned dated 4.8.2007 adversely effects civil rights already accrued in favour of the petitioners. 5. The allegation of the violation of the principles of natural justice is also made on the count that the order impugned dated 4.8.2007 adversely effects civil rights already accrued in favour of the petitioners. 5. Per contra the stand of the respondents is that the Government of Rajasthan under a notification dated 13.3.2006 introduced certain amendments in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) Pay Scale Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1998") and as per newly added Rule 18 of the Rules of 1998 a probationer is entitled for a fixed remuneration. The petitioners, therefore, were given fixed salary under the order dated 4.8.2007. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. While withdrawing regular pay scale and fixation made therein the sole stand of the respondents is that the petitioners being having a status of probationer, are not entitled for fixation of their pay in the pay scales, but for getting consolidated salary in view of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1998. 7. The petitioners were admittedly empanelled in the list of regularly selected incumbents for the purpose of appointment as drivers as per advertisement Anx.1. The advertisement clearly stipulates that for first three years the empanelled persons on being employed as driver shall receive consolidated salary. The order of appointments of the petitioners placed on record further discloses that the appointments made were subject to satisfactory work and conduct. This fact clearly shows that the appointments given to the petitioners were under regular vigil and assessment. It is further relevant to note that the respondent Corporation vide office order dated 13.12.2004 clarified that regularisation of the drivers working on consolidated salary shall be made subject to certain conditions and those are:- " v- budh vuqca/k vof/k dk;ZHkkj laHkkyus fd fnukad ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k gksuk vfuok;Z gSA c- bl vof/k esa budk dk;Z] vkpj.k ,oa O;ogkj larks"ktud gksuk vfuok;Z gSA l- bl vof/k esa deZpkjh ds fo:) lsok laca/kh vuq'kklughurk dk dksbZ vkjksi fopkjk/khu u gksA n- bl vof/k esa buds fo:) nqjkpj.k dh dksbZ f'kdk;r u gksa A ;- bl vof/k esa fuxe fojks/kh xfrfof/k;ksa esa fyIr u gksa " 8. As per the conditions aforesaid, the petitioners were taken on regular cadre by assessment of their work efficiency, conduct and attitude while working as driver for first three years. As per the conditions aforesaid, the petitioners were taken on regular cadre by assessment of their work efficiency, conduct and attitude while working as driver for first three years. The petitioners, thus, were certainly under probation, for a period of three years while discharging services on consolidated salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are also working against the permanent posts. If the respondents be permitted to treat the petitioners now as probationers then that shall be nothing but discontinuation of the petitioners from earlier service and reemployment on the post of driver, but factually the position is different. As already stated, the petitioners are working with the respondents from last number of years and their regularisation was made after assessment of their service, therefore, the period in which they were working on consolidated salary is only the period of probation. 9. An effort is made by counsel for the respondent Corporation for considering appointment of the petitioners purely on contract basis, but i.e. having no foundation. True it is, the respondent Corporation termed the petitioners as the drivers employed on contract basis, but merely by designating as such nature of appointment cannot be determined. It is pertinent to note that in the advertisement Anx.1 there is no assertion that the persons empanelled shall be employed on contract basis. The petitioners faced process of selection before their impanelment and i.e. the same process as required while recruiting drivers on regular basis. The petitioners are also having requisite qualification to hold the post of driver. No reason thus exists to treat the petitioners as contractual appointees. The facts available are sufficient to establish regular appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be treated as drivers employed on contract basis. 10. For the reasons given above, the grant of consolidated salary again to the petitioners, by treating them probationers under the order impugned dated 4.8.2007 is highly unjust and arbitrary, thus, is illegal. The order impugned dated 4.8.2007, hence deserves to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 4.8.2007 is quashed. The regular pay scales granted to the petitioners on completion of three years of service from the date of their initial appointment as a consequent to their impanelment under the advertisement Anx.1 (No.70/2000- 2001) is restored. No order to costs.Petition Allowed. *******