JUDGMENT : 1. Matter comes up on an application (IA No.2/2023) filed by the applicant for early listing and final disposal of the writ petition. However, with the consent of counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally today. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- “i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble court be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and it may be declared that that placement of the name of the petitioner at S.No.90 of the tentative seniority list (Annexure-6) and S.No. 87 of the Final Seniority list (Annexure-12) in comparison to the seniority assigned to the similarly situated employees at S.No. 55 onwards in the tentative seniority list at S.No.55 onwards in the final seniority list is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the name of the petitioner in both the tentative and final seniority lists so published by the respondent No. 1 may kindly be allowed to be placed at S.No. 55 and S.No. 55 respectively. ii) that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 be directed to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list from the date of his initial appointment on the post of junior Engineer-I (E&M) i.e. 27.03.91 and not from the date of screening/ selection in the year 1992 as the erstwhile RSEB did not conduct any selection process in the year 90 or in the year 1991 in respect of the petitioner even when some appointments were made in the year 1991 without even informing or calling the petitioner to face the selection process and later on has inadvertently given seniority to such ad hoc appointees of 1991 over and above the petitioner for no fault on the part of the petitioner. iii) that by an appropriate order or direction, this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the seniority/length of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.3.91 (12.04.91 Date of Joining) while effecting promotions on the post of Assistant Engineers or alternatively not to effect any promotion on the post of AEN till final disposal of this writ petition or one post of Assistant Engineer be kindly directed to be kept vacant till seniority matter is not finally decided by this Hon’ble Court for placing the name of the petitioner at the correct place in the respective seniority list of JENs. iv) Any other order or directions as may be deemed proper and considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be quantified in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer-I vide order dated 27.03.1991 passed by Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur in the regular pay scale with a condition that he has to appear before the selection committee. Thereafter, on the recommendation made by the selection committee and as approved by the appointing authority, the services of the petitioner were further extended on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale on probation for a further period of two years. 4. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are not counting the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment on the post of Junior Engineer-I i.e. from 27.03.1991. 5. The condition mentioned in the order dated 27.03.1991 reads as under:- “The above candidates appointed on adhoc basis will have to appear before the selection committee and their continuance will depend upon their being found suitable by the selection committee. The seniority inter se of the above candidates will be decided as per the merit assigned by the selection committee.” 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 27.03.1991 clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents subject to approval by the selection committee and later on his services has been placed before the selection committee and the selection committee has confirmed his appointment vide order dated 22.02.1992. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 27.03.1991 clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents subject to approval by the selection committee and later on his services has been placed before the selection committee and the selection committee has confirmed his appointment vide order dated 22.02.1992. Despite that the respondents are not providing seniority as well as all other service benefits from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 27.03.1991. Counsel further submitted that the respondents have wrongly not considered services of the petitioner for all purposes from 27.03.1991 to 22.02.1992 and petitioner is entitled for all the monetary benefits from the initial date of appointment i.e. from 27.03.1991. 7. In support of his contentions counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department & RDS Vs. Narenrdra Kumar Tripathi reported in (2015) 11 SCC 80 wherein paras No.13.1, 14 and 15 mentions as under:- “13.1. In Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn., it was observed:(SCC pp. 744-45, para 47) “47. To sum up, we hold that: (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot betaken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 14. The above principles are undisputed. Question of their application has arisen from time to time indifferent fact situations. Question to be decided in each case was whether the ad hoc appointment was stop gap and fortuitous as against being to an existing vacancy which continued and initial appointment was made after due selection without violating the rules, if any. 15. The above principles are undisputed. Question of their application has arisen from time to time indifferent fact situations. Question to be decided in each case was whether the ad hoc appointment was stop gap and fortuitous as against being to an existing vacancy which continued and initial appointment was made after due selection without violating the rules, if any. 15. The scheme of the working of the Rules in the Department shows that right from 1979, the Department has been making direct recruitment after due selection and by applying the 1979 Rules which rules have been extended from time to time to subsequent recruitments, services were regularized. Validity of the scheme of these recruitments is not under challenge. In such circumstances, when the rules provide that such ad hoc appointments have to be regularized and seniority counted from the date of appointment, the writ petitioner could not be deprived of the past service rendered by him from 12-6-1985 till the date of regularization. It is not a case of appointments made without due selection or without vacancy or without qualification or in violation of rules. The larger Bench failed to observe that the appointment of the writ petitioner was not dehors the rules nor by way of stop gap arrangement. The rules had the effect of treating the appointment as a regular appointment from initial date of appointment. In these circumstances, the principle laid down in Keshav Chandra Joshi was not applicable. It is not a case where service rendered is either fortuitous or against rules or by way of stopgap arrangement. Applying the principle laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn., the writ petitioner is entitled to count service from 12-6-1985. Moreover, the department has allowed the benefit of past service to other similarly placed incumbents as observed in the judgment giving rise to the appeal of the department.” 8. Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the services of the petitioner have been regularised by the respondents vide order dated 22.02.1992. Initially the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Junior Engineer-I vide order dated 27.03.1991 but his services have been regularised vide order dated 22.02.1992, therefore, they have rightly counted the services for the purpose of seniority and all other monetary benefits from 22.02.1992. 9. Initially the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Junior Engineer-I vide order dated 27.03.1991 but his services have been regularised vide order dated 22.02.1992, therefore, they have rightly counted the services for the purpose of seniority and all other monetary benefits from 22.02.1992. 9. In support of his contentions counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of the Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram reported in 2017(2) Volume 2 WLC (Raj.) UC 764. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons. Firstly, a bare reading of the order dated 27.03.1991 clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents in regular pay scale with a condition that the petitioner has to appear before the selection committee and his continuance will depend if he be found suitable by the selection committee. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee and after taking approval by the appointing authority the selection committee confirmed his appointment vide order dated 22.02.1992 in regular pay scale. Secondly, the initial appointment of the petitioner was not against the rules rather the same was in conformity of the rules of the Department. Thirdly, according to the order dated 22.02.1992, the selection committee approved the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the conditions already mentioned in the initial appointment order, with regard to approval of their appointment by the selection committee. 12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to count the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer-I from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 27.03.1991 instead of 22.02.1992. Respondents are further directed to grant all the consequential benefits accordingly within a period of three months from today. 13. Application (IA No.2/2023) stands disposed.