JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he became surplus in view of the reinstatement of one Laxman Lal Dindore. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Class IV employee in Doongarpur Judgeship and was selected through regular process under Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment & other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 vide order dated 21.12.2009. As per the order of appointment, the petitioner was appointed as Probationer Trainee and was to undergo probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the office of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Simalwara vide order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the respondent No.2. Suddenly before the expiry of the probation period, the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 26.05.2010 on the ground that one Laxman Lal Dindore, who was an ex-employee was reinstated on the post of Class IV in compliance of order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Committee of this Court. As a result of the said reinstatement, number of Class IV employees in Doongarpur Judgeship came to be 43 which was exceeding the total number of sanctioned posts i.e. 42. 3. While praying for setting aside the order dated 26.05.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected through regular process and therefore, termination of Ins services was unfair, arbitrary and against the Rules. 4. Reply has been filed. As per the Reply, the facts are not disputed. However, it is stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated in view of the provisions of Rule 23A(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner being the junior most employee had to go since Laxman Lal Dindore was ordered to be reinstated. It is further stated that the petitioner was on probation and therefore, his services could always be terminated within the probation period before he was regularized. The petitioner being the junior most employee had to go since Laxman Lal Dindore was ordered to be reinstated. It is further stated that the petitioner was on probation and therefore, his services could always be terminated within the probation period before he was regularized. The petitioner had accepted all the conditions of his appointment order and then joined the duties as Class IV employee as a Probationer Trainee purely on temporary basis and therefore, it does not lay in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate any ground contrary to the contents of terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order which was accepted by him and that the said Rules were duly applicable to him. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Rule 23A(2)(b) of the Rules of 1951 which is stated to be applicable to the petitioner and under which he was terminated reads as under:- "Where reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service, termination of service consequent upon the reduction of posts in the cadre under the appointing authority shall take place in the order of juniority." 7. A perusal of the above Rule shows that same is applicable only to those Government servants who are in temporary services. No doubt, the order of appointment states that the petitioner was on temporary basis, however, the following facts have also emerged and show otherwise: (a) The petitioner was appointed through regular process. (b) He was appointed against a substantive post. (c) He was placed under probation for two years. 8. As per Clause 8 of the appointment order, tire services of the petitioner were deemed to be confirmed on the said post alter completing the period of probation period. The said Clause 8 reads thus : " 8- vH;FkhZ dh nks o"kZ dh ifjoh{kk lsok,a larks"kizn iw.kZ gksus ij gh vH;FkhZ ij uohu va'knk;h isa'ku ;kstuk esfMdy vVsUMsUV :Yl rFkk jkT; chek ,oa izko/kk;h fuf/k ,oa LFkkbZ ikfjrks"k.k ds lHkh fu;e ykxw gksaxsA " 9. Even, as per the definition of substantive appointment as given in Section 2(i) of the Rules of 1999 that an appointment as a probationer will be followed by confirmation on completion of probationary period. Even, as per the definition of substantive appointment as given in Section 2(i) of the Rules of 1999 that an appointment as a probationer will be followed by confirmation on completion of probationary period. The same is reproduced below:- "Section 2(i) - "Substantive appointment" means an appointment made under the provisions of these Rules to substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these Rules and includes appointment on probation or as a probationer followed by confirmation on completion of probationary period." 10. The definition of Probationer as mentioned in Rule 7(30) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1981 further confirms the said fact. Rule 7(30) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1981 defines the probationer as under:- "Rule 7(30)-"Probationer" means a person appointed provisionally against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a service or on substantively vacant post." 11. Further as per Rule 3 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969, the definition of "regularly appointed" viz.-a-viz. adhoc or urgent temporary appointment would be relevant to adjudicate for the purpose of the present petition. "Section 3(jj) "Regularly appointed" means persons appointed on the recommendations of the Commission if the posts are in its purview and the persons appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the ease may be, but does not include as adhoc or urgent temporary appointment or officiating appointment which is subject to review and revision by the Departmental Promotion Committee." 12. A perusal of the above Rules, read altogether or individually, indicate that the present petitioner was appointed against the substantive post to be confirmed after the expiry of probation period of two years. Thus, under no circumstances it can be held that his appointment was urgent temporary, adhoc, contract or an officiating appointment. Thus, it is doubtful whether Rule 23A(2)(b) is applicable in the case of the present petitioner who was appointed on regular post through regular process. However, the said question is being left open to be decided in another case. 13. No doubt, the services of a Probationer can be terminated even though appointed against the substantive post. Thus, it is doubtful whether Rule 23A(2)(b) is applicable in the case of the present petitioner who was appointed on regular post through regular process. However, the said question is being left open to be decided in another case. 13. No doubt, the services of a Probationer can be terminated even though appointed against the substantive post. However, the same can be done only in accordance with Clause 4 as mentioned in the appointment order, which reads thus: " 4- vH;FkhZ nkSjkus ifjoh{kk vof/k] mldk dk;Z larks"kizn ugha ik;s tkus ij vFko izLrqr nLrkostkr dwVjfpr ik;s tkus ij vFkok fdlh izdkj dh rduhdh =qfV ik;s tkus ij mDr fu;eksa ds rgr fMlDokyhQkbZ gksus vFkok vU; fdlh dkj.k ls mls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fdlh Hkh le; lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxk rFkk blds fy;s og fdlh Hkh izdkj dk izfrdj dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksxkA " 14. The petitioner, therefore, could have been terminated only on account of unsatisfactory service or for any technical error or submission of forged documents etc. or 'any other reason'. However, the said reason can neither be arbitrary and nor against the Rules. The petitioner admittedly did not suffer from any of the deficiencies. Therefore, he is stated to fall in the category of 'any other reason'. The reason in the present case as stated is the reinstatement of one Laxman Lal Dindore and because of whom the number of sanctioned posts fell short and he was declared surplus. The services of the petitioner were terminated for no fault of Ins. Meanwhile, he has also become overage. 15. As per Rule 3(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969, a surplus employee can always be retained in service by absorption on other posts. The services of the petitioner were terminated for no fault of Ins. Meanwhile, he has also become overage. 15. As per Rule 3(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969, a surplus employee can always be retained in service by absorption on other posts. The same reads thus:- "3(1): Surplus Personnel" or "Surplus Employee" means the Government servant to whom the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 apply and who are declared surplus by the Government or by the Appointing Authority, under directions of the Government, on their being rendered surplus to the requirements of the Government, on their being rendered surplus to the requirements of a particular department of the Government due to the reduction of posts or abolition of offices therein as measures of economy or on administrative grounds but in whose case the Government decides not to terminate their services but to retain them in service by absorption on other posts." 16. Today, learned counsel for the respondents after seeking instructions on the asking of the Court has informed and fairly stated that as on date, 18 posts of Class IV employee are still lying vacant in the Doongarpur Judgeship. Taking into account the facts of the present case, the petitioner is indeed entitled to be absorbed in service. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in directing the respondents to adjust the petitioner against the vacant post with immediate effect by issuing him fresh appointment order. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to adjust the petitioner against the vacant post of Class IV employee with immediate effect by issuing him fresh appointment order. Admittedly, the petitioner has already undergone 6 months' of probation period, hence the said period shall be deducted from the two years probation period to be completed by him before confirming him on the said post.Petition allowed. *******