JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to consider his case for appointment on the post of LDC as per the notification dated 21.12.1989 issued by the Government for absorption of work charged employee on the post of LDC against 50% existing vacancies as on 1.4.1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980, thereafter, his services were terminated but upon raising industrial dispute, a compromise was arrived between the parties and the petitioner was reinstated in service vide compromise dated 1.1.1983 submitted before the Labour Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 1983, the petitioner is regularly performing his duties on the post of Munshi/LDC but his candidature has been rejected only on the ground that in the representation, the petitioner mentioned that he may be promoted on the post of LDC as per the notification dated 21.12.1989, in fact the said notification was issued for absorption of those work-charged employees who had completed two years of service on 1.4.1988, therefore, it is submitted that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 21.12.1989 because petitioner was eligible for absorption on the post of L.D.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion in view of the aforesaid, therefore, his candidature was rejected by the respondents vide Annexure-7. 6. As per rules, the promotion is to be made after determination of vacancies in the cadre. The petitioner was initially appointed as worked charged chowkidar, therefore, he cannot claim promotion on the post of LDC. 7. 6. As per rules, the promotion is to be made after determination of vacancies in the cadre. The petitioner was initially appointed as worked charged chowkidar, therefore, he cannot claim promotion on the post of LDC. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the notification dated 21.12.1989 in which following amendment was made in the Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 under Rule 7, which reads as under:- " la'kks/ku fu;e 7 esa la'kks/ku&jktLFkku v/khuLFk dk;kZy; fyfid oxhZ; deZpkjh fu;e] 1957 ( blesa blds i'pkr~ ;g dfFkr fu;eksa ds uke ls lanfHkZr fd;k tk,xk ) ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e 7 ds [k.M [k ds fo|eku ijUrqd ds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr ijUrqd vkSj tksM+k tk;sxk] vFkkZr~& bu fu;eksa esa dqN Hkh izfrdwy vUrfoZ"V gksus ij Hkh] lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx flapkbZ bfUnjk xka/kh ugj cksMZ ftlesa bfUnjk xka/kh ugj cksMZ dekaM ,fj;k foHkkx Hkh lfEefyr gS yksd LokLF; vfHk;kaf=dh foHkkx@vk;qosZn foHkkx esa odZ pkTMZ vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr O;fDr;ksa] ftUgksaus 1-4-1988 dks de ls de nks o"kksZa dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gS vkSj ljdkj }kjk ekU; ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku dh gkbZ Ldwy@;k lSdsUMjh@izosf'k{kk ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj yh gS] dks fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa ls xfBr lfefr }kjk ;ksX; ik;s tkus ij] mlls lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa esa dfu"B fyfid ds fjDr inksa ij fu;fer :i ls 1 vizSy 1988 dks dfu"B fyfidksa ds dqy fjDr inksa ds 50% inksa ij fu;qfDr nh tkos%& 1- foHkkxk/;{k ;k mldk uketn vf/kdkjh tks vfrfjDr eq[; vfHk;Urk@vfrfjDr foHkkxk/;{k ds in ls de gSfl;r dk ugha gksA 2- ,d ofj"B vf/kdkjh] ftls eq[; vfHk;Urk us uketn fd;k gks vkSj tks v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds in ls uhph gSfl;r dk ugha gksA 3- lEcfU/kr foHkkx dk eq[; ys[kkf/kdkjh@ofj"B ys[kkf/kdkjhA ,sls odZ pkTMZ deZpkjh ftUgsa dfu"B fyfid ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS tc fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk lapkfyr VkbZi ijh{kk esa fu;eksa ds fofgr xfr ls fu;qfDr rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds vUnj mRrh.kZ dj ysrs gSa] mlds i'pkr~ mUgsa fu;fer fd;k tk,xkA " 8. The aforesaid notification was considered in the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Moti Singh v. State of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2509/1992 decided on 22.10.2007 in which following directions were issued to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid notification dated 21.12.1989, which reads as under: "Though, of course, no ground, has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition staking claim by virtue of aforesaid notification, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Department on the basis of the aforesaid notification within a period of two months from today. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the Department shall consider the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of L.D.C. in accordance with the provisions of the amendment notification dated 21.12.1989, within a period of three months thereafter. With aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgement rendered by this Court in case of Anand Roop v. State of Raj., reported in WLR 1992 (S) Raj. 340 in which facts were almost similar to the facts of present case. 10. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was also eligible for absorption on the post of LDC against the 50% existing vacancies of the department on 1.4.1988 in spite of that his case was not considered for absorption on the post of L.D.C., therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for absorption on the post of LDC in the light of the notification dated 21.12.1989 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the post of L.D.C. then, he may be granted all the consequential benefits on notional basis.The writ petition is disposed of with above directions.Writ Petition Disposed of As Above. *******