Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Being aggrieved of the seniority list of Site Engineers issued by the Jaipur Development Authority on 12.12.2006 wherein the respondents have been shown senior to the petitioners and the order dated 14.12.2006 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority promoting respondent no.2 on the post of Sector Engineer from that of Site Engineer, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the seniority list of Site Engineers issued by the JDA on 12.12.2006, showing respondent nos. 2 to 8 above the petitioners be quashed and set aside. Further it has been prayed that the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the JDA by which respondent no.2 has been promoted on the post of Sector Engineer from the post of Site Engineer be also quashed and set aside. The petitioners have then prayed that the respondent JDA be directed to recast the seniority list of Site Engineers on the basis of joining of services in JDA and further to promote the petitioners on the post of Sector Engineer in accordance with recasted seniority. 2. The case of the petitioners is that after having passed their B.E. Examination from the respective Universities, they were initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Works) in the erstwhile Avas Vikas Sansthan (in short, here-in-after referred to as 'the AVS') which was a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The AVS was brought into existence as a result of the scheme formulated by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation, New Delhi, to set up a chain of buildings at the Centre and the State of Rajasthan. The AVS had started functioning in the year 1989. Lateron, in the year 1997 the AVS had begun to incur heavy losses so much so that it could not even pay salary to its employees after 1.12.1998. Therefore, the State Government had decided, in view of financial and administrative conditions, to dissolve the AVS. It was also decided that the employees of the AVS would be adjusted on priority basis against the vacant posts of the Municipal Board, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Development Authority and other local bodies, whenever the posts fall vacant on the retirement of the employees of such bodies. Accordingly, by resolution dated 26.3.1999, the AVS was dissolved. 3. It was also decided that the employees of the AVS would be adjusted on priority basis against the vacant posts of the Municipal Board, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Development Authority and other local bodies, whenever the posts fall vacant on the retirement of the employees of such bodies. Accordingly, by resolution dated 26.3.1999, the AVS was dissolved. 3. On 26.2.2000, a letter was written by the Deputy Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan to the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board clarifying that in pursuance of the order no.101/99 dated 20.5.1999 of the Cabinet of the State Government, the former employees and engineers of erstwhile AVS will be appointed through direct recruitment on the lowest post and no pay protection would be given. The past service rendered by them in AVS will not be considered in the new department. They were to be appointed on the minimum of scale of post on which they were given appointment (Annex.1). 4. In pursuance of the said order/ letter, the petitioners along with some other persons were appointed on the lowest post of Junior Engineer after interview held by the department of local bodies in the month of December, 1999. The petitioners were then appointed in JDA vide order dated 3.3.2000 on probation for a period of one year and their names appeared at sr. nos. 15 to 19. It was mentioned in the order that the said appointment was with certain conditions, such as, that their services would start from date of joining and that it was a fresh appointment. It is to be noted that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were already working on deputation with JDA, even prior to their appointment on 3.3.2000. Their date of joining on deputation was 30.1.1999, 22.2.1999 and 30.1.1999 respectively. Even petitioner nos. 5 and 6 were also working in JDA, on deputation, prior to their aforesaid fresh appointment. The petitioners and for that matter all persons including the respondents who had so joined the services of JDA had given an undertaking that they will not claim any seniority, continuity of service and pay protection in respect of the service rendered earlier with erstwhile AVS. 5. The petitioners and for that matter all persons including the respondents who had so joined the services of JDA had given an undertaking that they will not claim any seniority, continuity of service and pay protection in respect of the service rendered earlier with erstwhile AVS. 5. Subsequently, the petitioners were confirmed by order dated 20.9.2006 on the post of Junior Engineer, after completion of probation period w.e.f. the date of confirmation awarded which was on completion of two years of service from joining of the said post and their names appeared at sr. no.12, 13, 14, 15 and 17. Though the period of probation as mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioners was one year, but they were confirmed after two years. Accordingly, the petitioners nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were confirmed w.e.f. 5.3.2002 and the petitioner no.2 was confirmed w.e.f. 8.3.2002 (Annexure-3). 6. The respondents were also appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in JDA by order dated 23.3.2000 and 12.5.2000. K.C. Gupta was appointed on 30.9.2000. Respondent Rajesh Pal, K.C. Gupta and Pramod Katewa had been appointed in the local self government but lateron vide order dated 23.3.2000 they came to be appointed on the post of Site Engineer in JDA. Similarly, the respondents Sapan Mishra and Bhagwan Dutt Sharma had earlier been appointed in Panchayat Raj Department vide order dated 10.5.2000. But lateron they were also appointed as Site Engineer in JDA vide order dated 12.5.2000 (Annexures-4 and 5). The appointment of respondent nos. 2 to 8 were confirmed on the post of Site Engineer by order dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure-3) and their names appear at sr. nos. 20 to 25 and 38. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 had been confirmed w.e.f. 23.3.2002. The respondent no.7 had been confirmed from 11.5.2002; respondent no.8 from 15.2.2002 and respondent no.4 was confirmed from 30.2.2002. 7. The petitioners are said to have learnt that a seniority list of the post of Site Engineers was likely to be published and their placement was going to be shown junior to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation to the office of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jaipur Development Authority on 4.10.2006 with the request that they may not be shown junior to the persons who were appointed and confirmed in JDA much later to them. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation to the office of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jaipur Development Authority on 4.10.2006 with the request that they may not be shown junior to the persons who were appointed and confirmed in JDA much later to them. A notice for demand of justice, through their counsel, was also sent by the petitioners on 9.10.2006 suggesting that the JDA should not publish the seniority list of Site Engineers by showing the petitioners as junior to the respondents and if they are so shown, then it would be totally illegal and unjustified. It was also stated that if the petitioners are shown junior to the respondents, then it would also be contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 28.3.2006, in a matter relating to AVS. 8. Thereafter, the respondent JDA had published a provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers/ Site Engineers on 9.11.2006 wherein the petitioners were shown junior to the respondents by placing them at sr. nos. 25, 26, 20 and 23 whereas the respondents were at sr. nos. 3, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 21 respectively. It was mentioned in the provisional seniority list that the same was prepared in view of the seniority of the petitioners qua the respondents in the erstwhile AVS. Objections to the seniority shown in the list of 9.11.2006 were invited within a period of 15 days of its publication. The petitioners had submitted their written objections to the aforesaid provisional seniority list before the respondent JDA on various grounds. It was also objected that separate seniority cannot be assigned to the degree holder Site Engineers and the diploma holder Site Engineers as there was no provision to assign separate seniority in the same cadre, under the Jaipur Development Authority Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations, 1984. However, ignoring the objections filed by the petitioners, the JDA had published a final seniority list on 12.12.2006 wherein they were again shown junior to the respondents. The petitioners were placed at sr. nos. 25, 26, 20, 23 and 24 respectively whereas the respondents were at sr. nos. 3, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 21 respectively. However, ignoring the objections filed by the petitioners, the JDA had published a final seniority list on 12.12.2006 wherein they were again shown junior to the respondents. The petitioners were placed at sr. nos. 25, 26, 20, 23 and 24 respectively whereas the respondents were at sr. nos. 3, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 21 respectively. Subsequently, the respondent JDA, on the basis of aforesaid final seniority list, had promoted Rajendra Mathur on the post of Assistant Engineer (Sector Engineer) from the post of Junior Engineer (Site Engineer) ignoring the seniority claim of the petitioners since they had joined JDA much prior to him. Under the aforesaid circumstances, when the petitioners had been shown junior to the respondents in the final seniority list of Site Engineers issued by the JDA on 12.12.2006 despite of the fact that they had joined service in JDA much prior to them; the objections raised against the same having not been considered by the respondent JDA; the notice for demand of justice having been ignored and thereafter the respondent JDA in a hasty manner had promoted respondent no.2 on the post of Sector Engineer, that the petitioners have approached this court by way of the present writ petition seeking redress of their grievance. 9. The case of respondent no.1 Jaipur Development Authority is that the promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Sector Engineer is not illegal and that seniority list dated 12.12.2006 is also a correct one. So far as appointment of the petitioners as well as the respondents and their confirmation after completion of two years of service is concerned, it had been made by the respondent- JDA under the Jaipur Development Authority (Recruitment and General Conditional of Service) Regulations, 1984. Under the said regulations, an employee appointed under direct recruitment is to be placed on probation for two years. Thus, the petitioners and the respondents were confirmed after completion of two years of service in JDA. There being no provision in Regulation of 1984, by that time, with regard to the absorption of AVS employees, a new provision 12(2)(a-1) came to be inserted vide notification dated 29.8.2006 which was published in the official gazette on 29.9.2006 and came into effect from 15.10.1999. Accordingly, the appointment of the employees of erstwhile AVS in JDA was considered against direct recruitment quota (Annexure R-1). Accordingly, the appointment of the employees of erstwhile AVS in JDA was considered against direct recruitment quota (Annexure R-1). Further the case of the respondent JDA is that the employees of the erstwhile AVS were considered as one class irrespective of their date of appointment in JDA. Therefore, merely on the basis of date of joining in JDA, the inter-se seniority of AVS employees was not disturbed. According to the respondents, inter-se seniority of the employees who have been recruited by the same process of selection can be determined from their total length of service or merit assigned by the selection committee. The AVS employees were appointed in various local bodies including JDA by the direction of the State Government. Since all the petitioners and the respondents were employees of the AVS, as such their inter-se seniority was determined by the respondent JDA on the basis of seniority in AVS. The joining of AVS employees in local bodies including JDA was fortuitous and, therefore, on the basis of such factors inter-se seniority of AVS cannot be ignored. The provisional seniority list had been issued on the basis of length of service discharged in AVS. The petitioners as well as respondents were all employees of the erst-while AVS. Their absorption in different local bodies including the respondent JDA is on the basis of a policy decision taken by the State Government. Thus, all such employees constitute one class and, therefore, no distinction can be made amongst them. Thus, in order to absorb such employees in the JDA, the original seniority i.e. length of service cannot be ignored. Based on such criteria the JDA had prepared the tentative seniority list. It is the case of the respondent JDA that the previous service of petitioners and respondents has not been counted for fixation, promotion, retiral benefits or any other benefits, except for assigning interse seniority. Further it is the case of the respondent JDA that the petitioners and the respondents were employees of the AVS and on account of dissolution of AVS, they were initially absorbed in various local bodies including JDA. At the time of passing of the absorption order, it was made clear that their services may be transferred to any other local bodies and the petitioners were also aware about this fact. 10. The respondent nos. At the time of passing of the absorption order, it was made clear that their services may be transferred to any other local bodies and the petitioners were also aware about this fact. 10. The respondent nos. 2 to 8 have come with the case that the seniority list dated 12.12.2006 has been rightly issued by the JDA. The petitioners have been correctly shown junior to them. The promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Sector Engineer has been rightly given by the JDA. According to them, the petitioners and the respondents were working in AVS and the petitioners were junior to the respondents in the said Sansthan and they have been ranked junior in the seniority list issued by the JDA. As per the private respondents, after dissolution of erstwhile AVS, the State Government had taken a policy decision that all the employees working in AVS will be absorbed/adjusted in different departments/ local self organisations in the State of Rajasthan. On a decision having been taken by the Cabinet, the Chief Secretary had issued a Cabinet memo on 10.3.1999 that the employees of the AVS will be absorbed/ adjusted in JDA and other local self government organizations. A screening committee was constituted for adjudging the suitability of different employees, including the engineers and a screening was done on 18.12.1999 of all persons including the petitioners and respondents. Thereafter, a letter dated 26.2.2000 was issued by the UDH Department of the State Government. A proforma appointment order was also attached to the said order. According to condition no.11 of the proforma of appointment order, the State Government had power to transfer service of the employees during probation period to any other organization. The employees were required to join within one month from the issuance of appointment order in the department concerned and in case they fail to do so, their appointment was liable to be cancelled. Similarly, a proforma affidavit was also attached to the order dated 26.2.2000. A list of employees of the erstwhile AVS for appointment in the JDA, Rajasthan Housing Board, UIT, Local Self Government and Panchayati Raj Department was prepared where the names were mentioned as per seniority in erstwhile AVS. Similarly, a proforma affidavit was also attached to the order dated 26.2.2000. A list of employees of the erstwhile AVS for appointment in the JDA, Rajasthan Housing Board, UIT, Local Self Government and Panchayati Raj Department was prepared where the names were mentioned as per seniority in erstwhile AVS. According to the respondents working of the petitioners on deputation in JDA prior to their fresh appointment and the filing of undertaking by them has nothing to do with preparation of the seniority list of the employees. The respondents who had been included in the list after screening were initially allotted different departments and subsequently they were shifted to JDA. The issuance of the appointment orders of the petitioners at earlier point of time will not make them senior to the respondents. The placement of the respondents below the petitioners in confirmation order does not decide the seniority. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioners have drawn wrong calculation by mis-interpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further it is said that the Hon'ble Apex Court did not decide the issue of interse seniority between the employees. The petitioners wants to take undue benefit only on the basis of their earlier joining in the JDA. The JDA vide its letter dated 29.11.2006 written to the Director, Local Self Government, Housing Board, Deputy Secretary, UDH and Deputy Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department had sought their comments about the assigning of seniority to the erstwhile employees of the AVS. A request was made as to what procedure was to be adopted for assigning of seniority and in case any seniority list was issued, the same be sent to it. The UDH department, Government of Rajasthan had sent a letter on 19.12.2006 communicating that the employees of the erstwhile AVS are assigned seniority after consultation with DOP, as per previous seniority position. The UDH Department had issued a seniority list on 12.4.2005 and revised seniority list on 11.5.2005. After coming of the employees of the erstwhile AVS to the Jaipur Development Authority, a need arose for amending the service Regulations of 1984. Therefore, the State Government had written a letter on 24.2.2000 to the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority that the relevant rules be amended to adjust AVS employees. After coming of the employees of the erstwhile AVS to the Jaipur Development Authority, a need arose for amending the service Regulations of 1984. Therefore, the State Government had written a letter on 24.2.2000 to the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority that the relevant rules be amended to adjust AVS employees. On the said premise, it has been submitted by the private respondents that the aforesaid list issued and promotion given by the JDA to the respondent was legal, just and proper and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The AVS, the erstwhile employer of the parties to this writ petition, had come into existence as a result of the scheme formulated by the Housing Development Corporation, New Delhi. It was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to achieve certain objectives in furtherance of which this society was to collect information regarding low cost recurrence for construction of houses; undertake field studies for development of appropriate low cost building material; to undertake construction works and impart training etc. in the State of Rajasthan. The AVS started functioning in the year 1989, but soon it began to incur heavy loss. Ultimately, in the year 1998 it was unable to pay even the salary to its employees. Therefore, in view of financial crisis, the State Government decided to dissolve it. Thereafter, an order came to be passed by the Cabinet of the State Government on 20.5.1999 that the former employees and the engineers of the erstwhile AVS will be appointed through direct recruitment on lowest post and no pay protection will be given to them. The service rendered in AVS were not to be considered in another department and they were to be appointed on minimum of scale of post on which they were given appointment. Accordingly, a letter was issued by Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan on 26.2.2000 to the Commissioner, JDA and to Rajasthan Housing Board in this regard. The service rendered in AVS were not to be considered in another department and they were to be appointed on minimum of scale of post on which they were given appointment. Accordingly, a letter was issued by Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan on 26.2.2000 to the Commissioner, JDA and to Rajasthan Housing Board in this regard. The extract of the said order is as under: ^^Øekad%i-1@Mh,l-2@ufofo@2000 t;iqj fnukad 26 Qjojh] 2000 vk;qä] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqjA vk;qä jktLFkku vkoklu e.My] t;iqj funs'kd] iapk;rh jkt foHkkx] t;iqj 'kklu mi lfpo] uxjh; fodkl foHkkx] t;iqj funs'kd] Lfkkuh; fudk; foHkkx] t;iqj fo"k; % vkokl fodkl laLFkku ds iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfä ds laca/k esaA egksn;] ea=he.My dh vkKk 101@99 fnukad 20-5-99 dh vuqikyuk esa volk;uk/khu vkokl fodkl laLFkku esa dk;Zjr iwoZ vfHk;arkvksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph lacaf/kr foHkkx esa fu;qfä gsrq layXu dj izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA fu;qfä fuEu 'krksZ ds v/khu gksxh%& 1- fu;qfä lh/kh HkrhZ ds U;wure in ij nh tkosxhA 2- fdlh izdkj dk osru laj{k.k ns; ugha gksxkA 3- iwoZ dh lsok fdlh Hkh iz;kstu gsrq ekU; ugha gksxhA in ds U;wure osru ij osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA 4- fMxzh/kkjh vfHk;Urkvksa dh fu;qfä dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds in ij osru J`a[kyk 5000-150-8000 esa muds fy;s fu/kkZfjr U;wure osru :I, 6500@& ij dh tkosxhA fu;qfä vkns'k ij 'kiFki= ij v.MjVsfdax dk izk:I layXu dj izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gSA dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls iwoZ lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa ls fu/kkZfjr izki= esa 10 :I, ds ukWu T;wfMf'k;y LVkEi ij v.MjVsfdax vko';d :I ls izkIr dj ysaA 'kiFki= uksVsjh ifCyd ls izekf.kr djok;k tkosA fu;qfä vkns'k 'kh?kz izlkfjr dj bl foHkkx dks lwfpr djus dk d"V djsaA vkKk ls 'kklu mi lfpo** The order very specifically mentions, in the subject, that it is with regard to the appointment of erstwhile employees of AVS. The employees were to be appointed on the lowest post of direct recruitment. No pay protection was to be given to the employees. The service rendered in AVS was not to be recognised for any purpose. The salary was to be fixed on the minimum pay scale of the post. Along with the said order, a proforma of appointment order and that of an undertaking, to be given on an affidavit, was also sent. The undertaking was to be taken from the candidates on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.10/- before their joining. The salary was to be fixed on the minimum pay scale of the post. Along with the said order, a proforma of appointment order and that of an undertaking, to be given on an affidavit, was also sent. The undertaking was to be taken from the candidates on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.10/- before their joining. The affidavit was to be attested by a notary public. The undertaking was to specifically mention, on affidavit, that the appointment of deponent was fully a new appointment. The copy of the order dated 26.2.2000 along with proforma of appointment and the undertaking to be given on affidavit is on record as Annexure R/1. 12. In the meanwhile, the employees of the AVS apprehending that their services may be terminated approached the High Court through their association known as AVS Engineers Association by filing a writ petition (1750/1999) on 26.3.1999 and sought directions from the court that their services should not be terminated by the State Government or AVS etc. and in case the termination order has been passed, the same be quashed and set aside. Further it was prayed that they may be retained in service with benefit of their past services. The order of the State Government dated 15.3.1999 directing that the employees were to be taken in service in local bodies or the JDA etc. at lowest grade of service without benefit of past services, was also challenged. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 25.4.2000 and directions were issued that the Rajasthan Housing Board will create a new cell in the name of 'low cost housing centre' or any other name and employees would be employed in the said centre. The policy of the State Government to give alternative employment was quashed. The State Government, AVS and Rajasthan Housing Board preferred a special appeal before Division Bench against the aforesaid order dated 25.4.2000. The said appeal came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 3.5.2002 and directions given by the High Court to constitute a centre and quashing of the State Government decision to give alternative employment was set aside. The learned Division Bench directed that the services of the employees were to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The learned Division Bench directed that the services of the employees were to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Being aggrieved of the said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, different Special Leave Petitions (SLP's) were filed by the AVS and Rajasthan Housing Board and the same came to be allowed on 28.3.2006. The directions given by the High Court by the impugned judgments, were set aside. The contention raised by the employees that they must be posted on the post held by them was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that they had no right to claim adjustment to other local bodies. Further it was held that the employees of the AVS were not government servants and as such the provisions of RSR or Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Persons) Rules, 1969 were not applicable. 13. In furtherance of the letter dated 26.2.2000, the petitioners along with other persons were appointed on the lowest post of Junior Engineers, after due interview by department and local bodies held in December, 1999. The petitioners were appointed in JDA on 3.3.2000 (Annexure-2) on a probation of one year and their names appeared at Sr. Nos. 15 to 19. It was also mentioned in the said order that appointment was being given on certain conditions such as that their services will be starting from the date of their joining; it was to be a fresh appointment etc. etc. Nos. 15 to 19. It was also mentioned in the said order that appointment was being given on certain conditions such as that their services will be starting from the date of their joining; it was to be a fresh appointment etc. etc. The relevant extract of the said order is as under: ^^Øekad % ,Q-14¼15½tfoizk@laLFkk@99@ikVZ -ii fnukad 3-3-2000 &% vkKk %& uxjh; fodkl foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad% ,Q-1@Mh,l-2@ufofo@2000 fnukad 26-2-2000 dh vuqikyuk esa volk;uk/khu vkokl fodkl laLFkku esa dk;Zjr iwoZ vfHk;Urkvksa dks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ ,oa lkekU; 'krsZa½ fofu;e 1984 ds vurxZr ,d o"kZ dh ifjoh{kkdky ij muds lkeus vafdr inksa ij fu;qä fd;k tkrk gS%& ;s fu;qfä;ka uxjh; fodkl foHkkx ds i= esa vafdr 'krksZa rFkk fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/khu gksxh% 1- ------- 2- in xg.k djus ls iwoZ nks mÙkjnk;h O;fä;ksa ls tks vH;FkhZ ds fj'rsnkj u gksa] }kjk izekf.kr pfj= izek.k i= izLrqr djus gksaxsA 3- inLFkkiu ds Lfkku ij in xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls lsok vkjaHk gksxhA blds fy, dksbZ ;k=k HkÙkk ns; ugha gksxkA 4- ,d o"kZ dk ifjoh{kkdky lurks"kizn ik;s tkus ij gh lsok,a fu;fer dh tk ldsaxh vU;Fkk ifjoh{kkdky esa o`f) dh tk ldsxhA ifjoh{kkdky esa dk;Z larks"ktud ugha ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfä vf/kdkjh fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lsok,a lekIr djus ds fy, izkf/k—r gksaxsA 5- ;fn uo fu;qä dfu"B vfHk;Urk ¼lkbZV baftfu;j½ fu;qfä vkns'k tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg vFkkZr~ fnukad 1-4-2000 rd M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk gS rks fu;qfä vkns'k Lor% gh fujLr ekuk tkosxkA 6- ------- 7- fu;qfä jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa yafcr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 1306@99 yrs'k xgyksr cuke jkT; ljdkj ds fu.kZ;k/khu gksxhA 8- dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls iwoZ lacaf/kr vH;FkhZ ds 'kS{kf.kd ,oa rduhfd ;ksX;rk rFkk lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh tkap ewy izek.k i=ksa ls fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA 9- jkT; ljdkj dks ifjoh{kkdky esa vkidh lsok;sa fdlh vU; laLFkk dks Hkh Lfkkukarfjr djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA 10- fdlh izdkj dk osru laj{k.k ns; ugha gksxkA 11- ------- 12- fMxzh/kkjh vfHk;Urkvksa dh fu;qfä dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds in ij osru Ja`[kyk 5000-150-8000 esa muds fy, fu/kkZfjr U;wure osru :I, 6500@& ij dh tkosxhA ,l-Mh-@lfpo** 14. It is also to be noted that the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were already working on deputation in JDA prior to their fresh appointment on 30.1.1999, 22.2.1999 and 30.1.1999 respectively. It is also to be noted that the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were already working on deputation in JDA prior to their fresh appointment on 30.1.1999, 22.2.1999 and 30.1.1999 respectively. Similarly, petitioner no.5 and 6 were also working on deputation with JDA prior to their fresh appointment. The petitioners were subsequently confirmed on the post of Junior Engineer on 20.9.2006, after completion of their period of probation of two years. The names of the petitioners appear at Sr. No.12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 respectively. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were confirmed w.e.f. 5.3.2002 and petitioner no.2 w.e.f. 8.3.2002. The petitioners were subsequently confirmed on the post of Junior Engineer on 20.9.2006, after completion of their period of probation of two years. The names of the petitioners appear at Sr. No.12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 respectively. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were confirmed w.e.f. 5.3.2002 and petitioner no.2 w.e.f. 8.3.2002. The confirmation order, relevant extracts, is reproduced as under: ^^Øekad%-i-14¼10½tfoizk@laLFkk@06 fnukad 20-9-2006 ea=h e.My dh vkKk Øekad 101@99 fnukad 20-5-99 dh vuqikyuk esa uxjh; fodkl foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad ,Q-1¼Mh-,l-2½@ufofo@2000 fnukad 26-2-2000 ds Øe esa vkokl fodkl laLFkku ds fuEukafdr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,sa izkf/kdj.k dks fu;qfä gsrq lkSaih xbZ FkhA bu deZpkfj;ksa dks le; le; ij fHkUu fHkUu vkns'kksa }kjk lh/kh HkrhZ dksVk ds vUrxZr lkbZV vfHk;Urk@ dfu"B lgk;d@dEI;wVj vkWijsVj@bUosLVhxsVj ds in ij fu;qä djrs gq, t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ ,oa lkekU; 'krsZ½ fofu;e 1984 ds fofu;e 26 ds vUrxZr 22 o"kZdh ifjoh{kk vof/k ij j[kk x;k FkkA ftlds QyLo:I vc bUgksaus ifjoh{kk iw.kZ dj yh gSA vr% fofu;e 28 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr ifjoh{kk vof/k lQyrkiwoZd iw.kZ djus dh ?kks"k.kk djrs gq, fofu;e 29 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr izkf/kdj.k lsok esa muds uke ds le{k vafdr in ij dkWye la[;k 5 esa vafdr fnukad ls LFkkbZ ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA Ø- la- uke inuke dk;ZHkkj xzg.k frfFk ifjoh{kk vof/k iw.kZ djus ij LFkk;hdj.k dh fnukad 1 2 3 4 5 1 -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- 5 -- -- -- -- 6 -- -- -- -- 7 -- -- -- -- 8 -- -- -- -- 9 -- -- -- -- 10 -- -- -- -- 11 -- -- -- -- 12 Jh vfouk'k 'kekZ lkbZV vfHk;Urk 06-3-2000 ¼iwokZâu½ 05-03-02 13 Jh ;ksxs'k Lo:I ekFkqj lkbZV vfHk;Urk 06-3-2000 ¼iwokZâu½ 05-03-02 14 Jh fxj/kkjh yky vxzoky lkbZV vfHk;Urk 06-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 08-03-02 15 Jh Hkokuh flag jkBkSM+ lkbZV vfHk;Urk 06-3-2000 ¼iwokZâu½ 05-03-02 16 -- -- -- -- 17 Jh lquhy 'kqDyk lkbZV vfHk;Urk 06-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 05-03-02 18 -- -- -- -- 19 -- -- -- -- 20 Jh jktsUnz ekFkqj 23-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 23-3-2002 21 Jh izeksn dVsok lkbZV vfHk;Urk 23-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 23-3-2002 22 Jh nhid ekFkqj lkbZV vfHk;Urk 23-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 23-3-2002 23 Jh jkts'k iky lkbZV vfHk;Urk 23-3-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 23-3-2002 24 Jh Hkxoku nÙk 'kekZ lkbZV vfHk;Urk 15-5-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 15-5-2002 25 Jh liu feJk lkbZV vfHk;Urk 12-5-2000 ¼iwokZâu½ 11-05-02 26 -- -- -- -- 27 -- -- -- -- 28 -- -- -- -- 29 -- -- -- -- 30 -- -- -- -- 31 -- -- -- -- 32 -- -- -- -- 33 -- -- -- -- 34 -- -- -- -- 35 -- -- -- -- 36 -- -- -- -- 37 -- -- -- -- 38 Jh dSyk'k pUn xqIrk lkbZV vfHk;Urk 30-9-2000 ¼e-I'pkr½ 30-9-2002 lfpo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj** 15. Subsequently, the respondents were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in JDA vide orders dated 23.3.2000,12.5.2000 and 30.9.2000. The respondent Rajesh Pal, K.C. Gupta and Pramod Kateva were earlier appointed in local self government. Similarly, respondent Sapan Mishra and Bhagwan Dutt Sharma had been appointed in the Panchayati Raj Department. The relevant extract of the order dated 23.3.2000 is as follows: ^^Øekad% ,Q-14¼15½tfoizk@laLFkk@99 ikVZ-II fnukad 23-3-2000 &% vkKk %& uxjh; fodkl foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad ,Q-1@Mh,l-2@ufofo@2000 fnukad 26-2-2000 i-1@ml@ ii@ ufofo@2000 fnukad 13-3-2000 dh vuqikyuk esa volk;/khu vkokl fodkl laLFkku esa dk;Zjr iwoZ vfHk;Urkvksa dks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ ,oa lkekU; 'krsZ½ fofu;e 1984 ds vUrxZr ,d o"kZ ds ifjoh{kkdky ij muds lkeus vafdr inksa ij fu;qä fd;k tkrk gS%& ;s fu;qfä;ka uxjh; fodkl foHkkx ds i= esa vafdr 'krksZ rFkk fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/khu gksxh%& 1- ---------- 2- ---------- 3- inLFkkiu ds Lfkku ij in xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls lsok vkjaHk gksxhA blds fy, dksbZ ;k=k HkÙkk ns; ugha gksxkA 4- ,d o"kZ dk ifjoh{kkdky lurks"kizn ik;s ij gh lsok,sa fu;fer dh tk ldsaxh vU;Fkk ifjoh{kkdky esa o`f/k dh tk ldsxhA ifjoh{kkdky esa dk;Z lurks"ktud ugha ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfä vf/kdkjh fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lsok,a lekIr djus ds fy, vf/k—r gksaxsA 5- ------------------ 6- dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls iwoZ layXu fu/kkZfjr izi= esa 10 :I;s ds ukWu T;wfMf'k;y LVkEi ij 'kiFk i= ij v.MjVsfdax Hkj dj nsuk vko';d gS ,oa ;g 'kiFk i= fu;qfä i= dk ,d vax gSA 7- ------------------ 8- dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls iwoZ lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ ds 'kS{kf.kd ,oa rduhfd ;ksX;rk rFkk lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh tkap ewy izek.k i=ksa ls fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA 9- ----------------- 10- fdlh izdkj dk osru laj{k.k ns; ugha gksxkA 11- iwoZ dh lsok fdlh Hkh iz;kstu gsrq ekU; ugha gksxhA in ds U;wure osru ij osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA lfpo** 16. The respondents were subsequently confirmed on the post of Site Engineer on 20.9.2006 (Annexure-3, as reproduced above) and their names appeared at Sr. Nos. 20 to 25 and 38 respectively. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were confirmed w.e.f. 23.3.2002; respondent no.7 w.e.f. 11.5.2002; respondent no.8 w.e.f. 15.2.2002 and respondent no.4 had been confirmed w.e.f. 30.9.2002. 17. The respondents were subsequently confirmed on the post of Site Engineer on 20.9.2006 (Annexure-3, as reproduced above) and their names appeared at Sr. Nos. 20 to 25 and 38 respectively. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were confirmed w.e.f. 23.3.2002; respondent no.7 w.e.f. 11.5.2002; respondent no.8 w.e.f. 15.2.2002 and respondent no.4 had been confirmed w.e.f. 30.9.2002. 17. The order of confirmation of respondents clearly gives out that it was so done on completion of period of probation in the Jaipur Development Authority under Regulations of 1984 of the Jaipur Development Authority, as prevalent at that time and applicable to the respondents. The said order gives the name of the petitioners as well as the respondents, specifying the date of their confirmation. As referred above, the order of confirmation gives the details of all previous orders by which the services of the petitioner were in direct recruitment quota, in accordance to the provisions of the JDA Regulations, 1984. It is note worthy that the respondents did not raise any objections or gave representation to their employer Jaipur Development Authority in respect of their date of confirmation and placement of their names lower to the petitioners in the order of confirmation. 18. But the Jaipur Development Authority had thereafter issued a provisional seniority list of the Site Engineers under Regulation 30(4) of the Regulations of 1984, wherein the names of the petitioners were shown below the respondents i.e. at sr. nos. 25, 26, 20, 23 and 24 respectively whereas the respondents were at sr. Nos. 3, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 21 respectively. A bare perusal of the said list goes to show that the date of appointment of the petitioners was much earlier, as given in the relevant column, than that of the respondents. Similarly, the date of confirmation of petitioners was earlier to them. Even then, the respondents were placed higher than the petitioners in the provisional seniority list. As per the orders issuing provisional seniority list, objections if any were to be filed within 15 days. The petitioners had filed their objections within time i.e. 21.11.2006 giving detail factual position as well as the relevant law on the point involved. JDA had then issued the final seniority list, under Rule 30(4) of the Regulations of 1984, on 12.12.2006 after rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had filed their objections within time i.e. 21.11.2006 giving detail factual position as well as the relevant law on the point involved. JDA had then issued the final seniority list, under Rule 30(4) of the Regulations of 1984, on 12.12.2006 after rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. But the matter was not to end there, the respondent JDA had immediately given promotion to respondent no.2- Rajendra Mathur on the post of Assistant Engineer (Sector Engineer) w.e.f. 14.12.2006, that is to say, only after two days of issuance of the final seniority list. The said order of promotion gains significance as the same came to be issued on 15.12.2006 and not on 14.12.2006. According to the petitioners, the purpose of issuing final seniority list as well as the promotion order simultaneously and in a hasty manner was to deprive them from availing legal remedy by approaching a court of law in respect of final seniority list of 12.12.2006. 19. As mentioned here-in-above, by the respondent Jaipur Development Authority, that there was no provision under the Regulations of 1984 with regard to appointment of AVS employees as ordered by the State Government and considering such difficulty, a new provision 12(2)(a-1) was inserted vide notification dated 29.8.2006 which was published in the official gazette on 29.9.2006. The said provision was to come into force w.e.f. 15.10.1999. As per the provision, appointment of employees of erstwhile AVS in JDA was to be considered against direct recruitment quota. A copy of the notification has been placed on record by the JDA as Annexure R-1. The respondent no.1- JDA has averred in its reply thus: “Thus, in view of insertion of rule 12(2)(a-1), the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were confirmed with effect from the date they completed two years in JDA.” There was no provision made in the notification dated 29.8.2006 nor any other provision was inserted for counting past service rendered in AVS and to retain the inter-se seniority. This also makes it clear that seniority of both the parties to the writ petition was to be counted from their respective appointment in JDA. Further more, Section 30 of the JDA Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations, 1984 provides for the seniority in the cadre. Accordingly, the petitioners rank senior as they were appointed and confirmed prior to the respondents. 20. Further more, Section 30 of the JDA Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations, 1984 provides for the seniority in the cadre. Accordingly, the petitioners rank senior as they were appointed and confirmed prior to the respondents. 20. While considering reply filed by the respondent no.1- JDA, in the aforesaid para, the averments made in the earlier part of it have been taken note of. Besides, when a similar controversy had arisen in the case of Jagdish Chand Pannu and others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (SBCWP No. 8838/2006), respondent no.1- JDA had specifically come out with a reply that seniority of employees of AVS cannot be counted in JDA. The petitioners in the said case had claimed their seniority since their initial appointment in AVS. The relevant extract of reply reads as under: “Para 1(A)- That the petitioners were initially appointed in the erstwhile department Avas Vikas Sansthan (for short AVS). But later on, they were re-appointed as Junior Engineer in the Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA) on certain conditions including that they would not claim any benefit from previous service. The petitioners had accepted all the conditions prescribed by the answering respondent and thereafter joined the services in the JDA. It is manifest from perusal of order dated 25.5.2000 (Annexure-1) that their appointment as J.En. was treated afresh and they were initially appointed on the probation under the provisions of Jaipur Development Authority Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulations, 1984). Once the conditions were accepted by the petitioners they are bound by the same and therefore, they cannot be permitted to recede from it. However, after passing more than six years they have filed present writ petition seeking relief that the experience gained by them in AVS be counted. This relief, being barred by principles of estoppel, cannot be granted to them.” Therefore, the respondent- JDA cannot take a different stand in the instant case that inter-se seniority of petitioners and respondents in AVS will be counted. In fact, they are now estopped from doing so. 21. This relief, being barred by principles of estoppel, cannot be granted to them.” Therefore, the respondent- JDA cannot take a different stand in the instant case that inter-se seniority of petitioners and respondents in AVS will be counted. In fact, they are now estopped from doing so. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the bunch of Special Leave Petitions on 28.3.2006, had specifically mentioned about the decision of the cabinet of the State of Rajasthan, the conditions of appointment laid down by the State Government while giving alternative employment to the employees of AVS, the benefit of past service with AVS was not to be counted for any purpose etc. etc. and the relevant paras wherein such observations had been made are as follows: 48. In our view, after the liquidation of the AVS due to any reason unless such liquidation was malafide, there exists no right on the employees of such liquidated society for reemployment. In the present case, the Rajasthan Government did formulate a scheme to absorb the employees of the Society into various other organizations with various terms and conditions to which the respondent employees agreed. There is no allegation in the writ petition that the employees were coerced/forced/unduly influenced to submit the undertaking. Therefore, at a later stage it is unfair to take claims of service conditions other than the ones that are stipulated and accepted earlier. 51. With regard to 604 employees of the AVS, it was argued that the State of Rajasthan had no legal obligation to offer alternative employment to the erstwhile employees of the AVS. But the State of Rajasthan in all fairness did frame a scheme and offered employment in other local bodies of the government. Thus, the terms and conditions of such alternative employment cannot be challenged. We are of the opinion, that the decision of the High Court granting relief of reemployment with pay protection, seniority and pension is erroneous. We, therefore, direct the State of Rajasthan to strictly adhere to and implement its decision to offer employment in other local bodies in letter and spirit. 54. With regard to the claim of the respondents for counting services rendered in AVS, the Cabinet decision of 18.05.1999 specifically states that "the benefit of past service is not to be counted for any purpose". The same was conveyed by the Rajasthan Housing Board letter dated 01.06.1999. 54. With regard to the claim of the respondents for counting services rendered in AVS, the Cabinet decision of 18.05.1999 specifically states that "the benefit of past service is not to be counted for any purpose". The same was conveyed by the Rajasthan Housing Board letter dated 01.06.1999. Therefore the undertaking by the employees when they were absorbed into other local bodies had the same stipulation; therefore at this late stage such claim for counting services rendered in the AVS for the pension and other retiral benefits, in our opinion, cannot be made. 58. If they are absorbed in future the same will be treated as a fresh employment and employees/appointees will be governed by the rules and regulations of the absorbing Department if they are found suitable. 59. It is well settled that the power to abolish a post which may result in the holder thereof ceasing to be a Government Servant has got to be recognized. The measure of economy and the need for streamlining the administration to make it more efficient may induce any State Government to make alterations in the staffing pattern of the civil services necessitating either the increase or the decrease in the number of posts or abolish the post. In such an event, a Department which was abolished or abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the Court cannot, by a writ of mandamus, direct the employer to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged. In the instant case, the State of Rajasthan has framed a scheme and offered alternative employment in the other local bodies as a Welfare State on humanitarian grounds. As already noticed, the employees of the AVS have accepted alternative employment on terms and conditions of the local bodies and having filed a solemn statement by way of affidavit that they will not claim continuity of service by protection of seniority etc. nor will they challenge the terms of such employment and shall also withdraw the writ petition filed by them. They cannot now go around and say that the judgment of the Division Bench should be given effect to. In our view, they are estopped from claiming the benefits and challenging the terms and conditions of the fresh employment. The employees have no right to resile from the affidavits filed before the High Court. They cannot now go around and say that the judgment of the Division Bench should be given effect to. In our view, they are estopped from claiming the benefits and challenging the terms and conditions of the fresh employment. The employees have no right to resile from the affidavits filed before the High Court. We have searched in vain in order to see as to whether there is any material to show that the settlement was intended to frustrate the order passed by the High Court. At no point of time, the employees raised any dispute as regards the fairness of the settlement. Having obtained the benefit, it was not open to them to turn down without justifiable reasons to contend that the settlement was not fair and they should be given pay protection, counting of service for retiral benefits and placing the employees on a par in the receiving Department. The cabinet decision of not granting pay protection was taken after taking into consideration the views of the Finance Department as it has huge financial burden on the local bodies offering reemployment after relaxing their own recruitment rules. In our view, the aforesaid categorical condition that the employees would not be entitled to pay protection and in the absence of any legal right of pay protection and fresh employment consequent upon on fresh appointment on humanitarian grounds, the decision of the High Court to grant protection of pay is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. 22. It is also to be noted that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.5302/2004 and other connected appeals), the department of Urban Development and Housing had revised the earlier seniority dated 12.4.2005 and 11.5.2005 of the erstwhile employees of AVS who were appointed in the department as fresh appointees, vide order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure-17). The persons named at sr. nos. 6 to 19 in revised seniority list had earlier been granted placement, as per the seniority in AVS. As for instance, in the seniority list of 12.4.2005, Sunil Vyas was shown at sr. no.19 and Anit Mathur at sr. no.26. Similarly, in the seniority list of 11.5.2005, Sunil Vyas was shown at sr. no.19 and Anit Mathur at sr. nos. 6 to 19 in revised seniority list had earlier been granted placement, as per the seniority in AVS. As for instance, in the seniority list of 12.4.2005, Sunil Vyas was shown at sr. no.19 and Anit Mathur at sr. no.26. Similarly, in the seniority list of 11.5.2005, Sunil Vyas was shown at sr. no.19 and Anit Mathur at sr. no.29, on the basis of their inter-se seniority in the erstwhile AVS, ignoring their date of appointment in the department of UDH which was 25.3.2000 and 14.3.2000 respectively. In the revised seniority list of 26.3.2008, Sunil Vyas had been placed at sr. no.14 and Anit Mathur at sr. no.6, on the basis of their appointment in the department of UDH. The seniority list dated 12.4.2005 and 11.5.2005 have been placed on record by respondent nos. 2 to 8 as Annexures R-7 and R-8 respectively. The Urban Development and Housing Department had revised the aforesaid seniority list of its Junior Engineers on 26.3.2008 after seeking opinion from the Department of Personnel. After considering the matter, the Department of Personnel had opined to assign the seniority of its Junior Engineers, who were earlier working in AVS on the basis of their appointment in Urban Development and Housing Department, in pursuance of the judgment dated 28.3.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The copies of the note-sheets drawn by the UDH and DOP have been obtained by the petitioners under the RTI and have been collectively placed on record as Annexure-18. The Rajasthan Housing Board had also assigned seniority to its Junior Engineers (Project Engineer Junior) who were earlier working in AVS and were later on appointed in the Board, on the basis of their date of appointment in Rajasthan Housing Board. For example, G.R. Beniwal and Vijay Kumar Kumawat were shown at sr. no.2 and 25 respectively in the seniority list of the erstwhile AVS, as per their joining in AVS on 3.4.1989 and 17.3.1993. But Vijay Kumar Kumawat was appointed in Rajasthan Housing Board before G.R. Beniwal and as such in the seniority list dated 1.1.2010 the name of G.R. Beniwal was shown at Sr. No.198 whereas Vijay Kumar Kumawat was shown at sr. no.173 (Annexures- 21 and 22). 23. But Vijay Kumar Kumawat was appointed in Rajasthan Housing Board before G.R. Beniwal and as such in the seniority list dated 1.1.2010 the name of G.R. Beniwal was shown at Sr. No.198 whereas Vijay Kumar Kumawat was shown at sr. no.173 (Annexures- 21 and 22). 23. It has been averred by the petitioners in their rejoinder that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent- JDA has issued an order dated 20.2.2007 by which the respondent nos. 3 to 6 have been promoted on the post of Sector Engineers on the basis of seniority list dated 12.12.2006. The petitioners and respondent nos. 7 and 8 have also been promoted on the post of Sector Engineer on adhoc basis vide order dated 13.10.2008 wherein the petitioners are shown at sr. nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 whereas the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have been shown at sr. nos. 2 and 3. The respondent no.2 have been assigned the charge of further higher post i.e. the Executive Engineer by order dated 27.4.2011 after ignoring the seniority of the petitioners (Annexure-23). The petitioners have, therefore, made prayer in the pleadings and also submitted during the course of arguments that the orders dated 20.2.2007, 13.10.2008 and 27.4.2011 be also quashed and set aside as the said orders have been passed adverse to the petitioners in pursuance/ consequence of the impugned seniority list dated 12.12.2006 24. From the aforesaid, it is revealed that after dissolution of AVS which was a registered society and its employees who were not government servants nor the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules were applicable to them, the Cabinet of Government of Rajasthan had acted benevolently and decided to give employment to such employees in its departments, i.e. Local Self Government; Urban Development and Housing Department; Jaipur Development Authority; Rajasthan Housing Board etc. The decision so taken had very categorically mentioned about the appointment; the nature of services; absence of benefits of services rendered with the erstwhile employer- AVS, etc. etc. In furtherance thereof, the State Government had issued orders for giving employment to former employees of AVS. The appointment given to such employees in new departments had very clearly specified the conditions of service etc. in the order of appointment itself. etc. In furtherance thereof, the State Government had issued orders for giving employment to former employees of AVS. The appointment given to such employees in new departments had very clearly specified the conditions of service etc. in the order of appointment itself. Further the employee was to give an undertaking on affidavit, executed on a non-judicial stamp and duly notarised, that they will not claim any seniority, continuity of service, pay protection etc., in respect of service rendered by them with the erstwhile employer viz. AVS. 25. According to the aforesaid decision/ orders, the petitioners were appointed on the lowest post of Junior Engineer after entering into the department of Local Bodies in December, 1999. Thereafter, they were appointed on probation, in JDA by order dated 3.3.2000. Likewise, the respondents were also appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in JDA by orders dated 23.3.2000, 12.5.2000 and 30.9.2000. Their appointments were also initially on probation and with certain conditions, as mentioned in the orders. The services of the respondents were to start from their date of joining and was a fresh appointment. The respondents had also given an undertaking that they would not claim any seniority, continuity of service and pay protection in respect of the earlier services rendered with AVS. The petitioners and the respondents were subsequently confirmed by a common order dated 20.9.2006, after completion of their probation period and with effect from the dates of initial appointment in JDA. The names of the petitioners had, in the order of confirmation, appeared higher than that of the respondents. It is note worthy that the respondents had not raised any objection or gave representation to their employer, namely; JDA, in respect of their date of confirmation and also that the names of the petitioners were placed higher to them in the said order of confirmation. 26. The present controversy appears to have arisen when the petitioners had learnt that in the seniority list which is going to be published for the post of Site Engineers, their placement would be shown junior to the respondents. Therefore, representations were submitted to the office of Additional Commissioner (Administration), JDA in October, 2006. 26. The present controversy appears to have arisen when the petitioners had learnt that in the seniority list which is going to be published for the post of Site Engineers, their placement would be shown junior to the respondents. Therefore, representations were submitted to the office of Additional Commissioner (Administration), JDA in October, 2006. Further notice for demand of justice was sent by the petitioners through their counsels; as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AVS and others (supra) with other bunch of special leave appeals relating to all the issues of service had come to be decided by that time stating that if the seniority list is published showing the petitioners as junior to the respondents then it would be totally illegal, unjustified and in violation of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the employer JDA had declined to accept the request of the petitioners, then the instant writ petition came to be filed in the year 2007. 27. On the contrary, the Urban Development and Housing Department had revised the seniority list of erstwhile employees of AVS on the post of Junior Engineer who were appointed in the department as fresh appointees by order dated 26.3.2008, resulting in revision of earlier seniority list issued on 12.4.2005 and 11.5.2005. The said revision was made on the opinion given by the Department of Personnel. Similarly, Rajasthan Housing Board had also assigned seniority to its Junior Engineers, who had earlier worked in AVS, on the basis of their appointments in the Board. Accordingly, a revised seniority list was issued on 1.1.2010. 28. The matter can be looked into from yet another angle that there was no provision under the Jaipur Development Authority (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations, 1984 with regard to appointment of the employees as ordered by the State Government in respect of AVS employees. Therefore, a new provision 12(2)(a-1) was inserted on 29.8.2006 and the same was made applicable w.e.f. 15.10.1999 by which the appointment of employees of the erstwhile AVS in JDA was to be considered against direct recruitment quota. Neither in the said notification nor any other provision was inserted in the Regulations of 1984 so as to count the past service rendered in AVS and to include the inter-se seniority of the employees also. Neither in the said notification nor any other provision was inserted in the Regulations of 1984 so as to count the past service rendered in AVS and to include the inter-se seniority of the employees also. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the Regulations of 1984 provide seniority in the cadre and, accordingly, the petitioners were to rank senior and they were to be confirmed prior to the respondents. 29. It is significant to note that in the case of Jagdish Chand Pannu (supra) the respondent- JDA, in its reply to the writ petition, had come out with a specific case that the seniority of the former employees of AVS cannot be counted in JDA. The petitioners, in that case, had claimed seniority in JDA by counting their past services in AVS. Another objection was also raised by JDA that once the conditions of appointment were accepted by the petitioners, then they were bound by the same. They cannot be permitted to recede from it. Thus, the claim made by the petitioner in the case of Jagdish Chand Pannu (supra) that the service rendered by him in AVS be counted was rejected as being barred by the principle of estopple and no relief can be granted to him. 30. Above all, the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AVS (supra) leaves no doubt in any manner that the claim of service conditions, other than the one stipulated in the appointment order to which the respondents employees had agreed can not be permitted to be made at a later stage. Further it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the State of Rajasthan had no legal obligation to offer alternative employment to the erstwhile employees of AVS but still a scheme was framed and employment was offered in other local bodies of the Government. In such a situation, the terms and conditions of such alternative employment cannot be challenged. The State of Rajasthan was directed to strictly adhere to and implement its decision to offer employment in other local bodies, in letter and spirit. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Cabinet decision of 18.5.1999 had specifically stated that the benefit of past services is not to be counted for any purpose. The State of Rajasthan was directed to strictly adhere to and implement its decision to offer employment in other local bodies, in letter and spirit. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Cabinet decision of 18.5.1999 had specifically stated that the benefit of past services is not to be counted for any purpose. In such a situation, the undertaking given by the employees when they were absorbed into other local bodies cannot be revoked at a later stage, claiming to count services rendered in AVS. All such employees were absorbed in future treating to be fresh employees and they were to be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the absorbing department. Further it was observed that the employees of AVS had accepted the alternative employment on terms and conditions of Local Bodies and have filed a solemn statement by way of affidavit that they will not claim continuity of service, by protection of pay etc. nor would they claim the terms of such employment and shall withdraw the writ petitions filed by them. They cannot now turn around and say that the judgment of the Division Bench be given effect to. Further it was observed that such employees are estopped from claiming the benefits and challenging the terms and conditions of fresh employment. 31. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent JDA had issued order on 20.2.2007 by which the respondents have been promoted on the post of Sector Engineer on the basis of impugned seniority list dated 12.12.2006. The petitioners have also been promoted on the said post, on adhoc basis vide order dated 13.10.2008 but again the petitioners have been shown junior to the respondents. Further more, respondent no.2 has been assigned the charge of higher post i.e. Executive Engineer on 27.4.2011 by ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. Therefore, the orders dated 20.2.2007, 13.10.2008 and 27.4.2011 are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed, adverse to the petitioners, in furtherance of the impugned seniority list dated 12.12.2006. 32. In view of above, this court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners merit acceptance. Therefore, the orders dated 20.2.2007, 13.10.2008 and 27.4.2011 are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed, adverse to the petitioners, in furtherance of the impugned seniority list dated 12.12.2006. 32. In view of above, this court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners merit acceptance. On thoughtful consideration of the case of the respondents; careful perusal of the material on record and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AVS (supra), this court has come to the conclusion that they have no merit. 33. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be accepted and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 12.12.2006 issued by the respondent JDA of the cadre of Site Engineers is quashed and set aside. The orders dated 20.2.2007, 13.10.2008 and 27.4.2011 are also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to redraw the seniority list of the post of Site Engineers, qua the petitioners and the respondents, in accordance to their date of joining of services in the JDA and accordingly the consequences would follow. The order dated 14.12.2006 by which the respondent no.2 was promoted on the post of Sector Engineer is also quashed. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by respondent Jaipur Development Authority within fifteen days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.