Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—By way of this intra-court appeal, the employers-appellants seek to question the order dated 23.08.2011 as passed in CWP No.5040/2007 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the employees-respondents on their grievance against the impugned order dated 04.08.2007 (Annex.11) whereby, the regular pay scales already granted to them after 3 years of service were sought to be withdrawn; and they were sought to be put on probation and on consolidated salary. 2. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: Under an advertisement No.70/2000-2001 (Annex.1), the appellant–Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’) invited applications for preparing a panel for recruitment to the post of driver. Note No.3 in the said advertisement had been to the effect that the candidates employed from the panel shall be given a fixed salary of Rs.2,100/- per month in the first year of engagement; and upon satisfactory service, would be given another Rs.150/- over Rs.2,100/- per month in the second year of engagement and Rs.200/- over the fixed salary of Rs.2,100/- per month in the third year. It was also provided that upon completion of 3 years of satisfactory service, the driver employed shall be fixed in the regular pay scale. 3. After the process of selection under the advertisement aforesaid, the respondents herein were placed on the select panel; and were accorded appointments under different orders issued in the years 2001 and 2002. The respondents continued to work with the appellant-Corporation and in due course of time, by the different orders issued in the years 2006 and 2007, each one of them was given the appointment in the regular pay scale. However, suddenly, the Chief Manager of the Corporation at its Nagaur Depot issued the impugned order dated 04.08.2007 (Annex.11) seeking to withdraw the pay scales already granted to the respondents and, instead, to appoint them on a fixed salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and on a probation of 2 years with the stipulation that after satisfactory completion of 2 years of probation, they would be given the regular pay scale. This order dated 04.08.2007, the bone of contention in the writ petition, reads as under:- ^^bl dk;kZy; ds fuEu vkns'kksa }kjk fuEu pkydksa dks muds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr fnukad ls pkyd in dh ¼3050-75-3950-80-4590½ fu;fer osru J`a[kyk esa fu;qfä iznku dh xbZ Fkh %& Øekad uke deZpkjh firk dk uke vkns'k la[;k@ fnukad fu;fer fu;qfä fnukad ls 1. Jh izrkijke Jh gfjjke 209/25-02-2006 03-01-2006 2. Jh psuflag Jh fgEerflag 301/11-04-2006 28-03-2006 3. Jh izrkiflag Jh enuflag 301/11-04-2006 29-03-2006 4. Jh f'koukjk;.k Jh jrukjke 301/11-04-2006 29-03-2006 5. Jh t;izdk'k Jh jkeukjk;.k 857/21-11-2006 01-10-2006 6. Jh x.kirjke Jh lq.Mkjke 857/21-11-2006 01-10-2006 7. Jh rstkjke Jh ukFkwjke 35/12-01-2007 01-12-2006 8. Jh pSukjke Jh n;kjke 171/07-03-2007 01-03-2007 vr% mijksä vkns'kksa esa la'kksf/kr djrs gq, mä pkydksa dks muds uke ds vkxs lUeq[k fnukad ls pkyd in ij 3000@& ¼rhu gtkj :i;s ek=½ fQDl dh nj ij nks o"kZ ds ifjoh{kkdky ij fu;fer fu;qfä dh tkrh gSA nks o"kZ ds lQy ifjoh{kkdky iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ bUgsa fu;fer osrueku ns; gksxkA** 4. Questioning the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2007, the respondents preferred the writ petition leading to this appeal. The said order was questioned as being wholly illegal and having been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the appellants herein (respondents in the writ petition) attempted to justify the same with reference to the amendment by the State Government to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) Pay Scale Rules, 1998; and also on the suggestion that the writ petitioners were initially engaged only on contract basis. 5. The learned Single Judge referred to the basic facts of the case and further referred to the fact that the Corporation, by its order dated 13.12.2004, made the provision for regularisation of the drivers working on consolidated salary subject to certain conditions; and found that the writ petitioners were taken on regular cadre after assessment of their work efficiency, conduct and attitude while working as driver for first 3 years. The learned Judge observed that the writ petitioners were, of course, on probation for a period of 3 years while discharging their duties on a consolidated salary but, if the employer would now be permitted to treat them as probationers, that would practically amount to discontinuation of their services though the position was factually different. 6. The learned Judge observed that the writ petitioners were, of course, on probation for a period of 3 years while discharging their duties on a consolidated salary but, if the employer would now be permitted to treat them as probationers, that would practically amount to discontinuation of their services though the position was factually different. 6. The learned Single Judge also rejected the contention on the part of the Corporation that appointment of the petitioners was purely contractual with the observation that in the advertisement (Annex.1), there was no stipulation that the persons empanelled would be employed on contract basis. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioners faced the regular process of selection before their empanelment; they were having the requisite qualification to hold the post of driver; and no reason existed to treat them as contractual appointees. 7. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge concluded that putting the writ petitioners again on consolidated salary by treating them as probationers was highly unjust and arbitrary; and proceeded to quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2007 while restoring the regular pay scales granted to the writ petitioners. 8. Seeking to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the order dated 04.08.2007, having been issued as per the notification of the Government and after approval by the Board of Directors, called for no interference particularly when the decision of the Board of Directors was not even challenged in the writ petition. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has omitted to consider the objections regarding availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is yet further submitted that the Corporation is entitled to frame the rules and regulations in regard to the appointment and service conditions of its employees; and in the matter involving financial implications, the Corporation is bound to follow the Government’s directions. It is submitted that the services of respondents have not been discontinued but their service conditions have been settled in consonance with the Pay Scale Rules of 1998 and thus, there was no justification for interference by the learned Single Judge. 9. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are in agreement with the views expressed by learned Single Judge in this case and find no reason to entertain this appeal. 9. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are in agreement with the views expressed by learned Single Judge in this case and find no reason to entertain this appeal. 10. Put in a nutshell, the fact of the matter remains that the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) did enter into the service of the appellant-Corporation after due process of selection under the aforesaid advertisement No.70/2000-2001. As per the terms of advertisement, they were to remain on a consolidated salary for 3 years, may be with slight increase every year. However, it was a clear stipulation in the advertisement itself that after 3 years of satisfactory service, the selected persons would be employed in the regular pay scale. The clinching aspect of the matter is that the respondents indeed worked for over 3 years and, thereafter, in the years 2006 and 2007, were granted the regular pay scales, as is distinctly mentioned in the impugned order itself. 11. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned indisputable facts, it bits the logic that the incumbents like the writ petitioners, who were working on the permanent post after due selection and who, after more than 3 years of satisfactory service, had been fixed in the regular pay scale in conformity with the stipulations in the advertisement and so also in the scheme framed by the Corporation, were sought to be reverted to the consolidated pay and it was sought to be suggested that they would be on probation for 2 years! 12. The suggestion by the appellant-Corporation as made with reference to the amendment in the revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998 by the Government remains rather misplaced. The said Rules could not have operated in such a prejudicial manner to the employees of the Corporation that a person who had rendered over 3 years of satisfactory service on consolidated pay and had, thereafter, been fixed in the regular pay scale on a permanent post, was suddenly to be regressed to the consolidated salary and assigned the status of probationer de novo. 13. We respectfully concur with the learned Single Judge that so far 'probation' is concerned, each of the writ petitioners had, in fact, worked in that capacity for over 3 years before being fixed in the regular pay scale. 13. We respectfully concur with the learned Single Judge that so far 'probation' is concerned, each of the writ petitioners had, in fact, worked in that capacity for over 3 years before being fixed in the regular pay scale. It would be a travesty of justice if they are to be reverted to the status of probationer. The impugned order being entirely unjust and arbitrary, could not have sustained itself; and has rightly been quashed. 14. The submissions as urged in this appeal about the alternative remedy are of no avail. Neither the existence of any alternative remedy is that of absolute bar against maintainability of a writ petition nor the learned Single Judge has committed any error in the present case in entertaining the writ petition and in quashing an entirely arbitrary and rather whimsical order. 15. The other submission about entitlement of the Corporation to lay down service conditions is also of little relevance. The Corporation is, of course, entitled to lay down the service conditions for its employees but then, no such principle or provision has been indicated whereby the existing legal right of an employee on the pay and status could be altered to his prejudice at the whims and sweetwill of the Corporation. We have no hesitation in observing that if indicated, any such provision would have been pronounced illegal and unconstitutional. 16. In the present case, we are clearly of opinion that the rights, which crystalised in favour of the writ petitioners after 3 years of satisfactory service and after grant of regular pay scales, could not have been taken away in the manner attempted on behalf of the appellants. 17. In an overall view of the matter, we find absolutely no ground to interfere with the just and proper order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. 18. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.