ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The petitioners, who are working as Ayurved Chikitsak in the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, or have retired from the said post during the pendency of the writ petition, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India jointly as a common grievance has been raised herein. The petitioners have made the following prayers in the writ petition :- "(i) by appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak and grant them regular scale of pay with all consequential benefits; (ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to count services rendered by the petitioners from the date of initial selection (on contractual basis) towards probation with all consequential benefits including fixation of pay, confirmation, assured career progression etc.; (iii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, in the alternative the respondents may be directed to count services of the petitioner on substantive basis from the date of their selection and regular appointment made in the year 2009 with all consequential benefits; (iv) by appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents in paying fix salary during the period of probation be declared illegal and it may be declared that the petitioners are entitled to regular scale of pay during the period of probation;" 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the instant case are that the respondents published advertisements dated 19.12.2001 and 06.10.2003 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on contract. On both occasions, the select lists were prepared on the basis of merit as per the criteria determined by the Department of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan and the same were issued on 14.02.2002, 09.02.2004 and 11.11.2004. Pursuant to the aforesaid select lists, the petitioners were granted appointment on contract basis on consolidated remuneration and they started working as such. 3. In the year 2008, the respondents framed the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 2008 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008'). Under the Rules of 2008, a separate wings of Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy services were constituted. The Rules of 2008 provided for initial recruitment, direct recruitment and promotion. 3. In the year 2008, the respondents framed the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 2008 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008'). Under the Rules of 2008, a separate wings of Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy services were constituted. The Rules of 2008 provided for initial recruitment, direct recruitment and promotion. The intitial recruitment was provided to take care of all those Ayurved Chikitsak, who were working on contractual basis. Pursuant to the Rules of 2008, an advertisement dated 21.07.2008 was issued inviting applications to fill up 320 posts of Ayurved Chikitsak. The petitioners, who were working on contractual basis submitted their applications for selection to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak and after being subjected to selection process, their names found place in the select list and they were given appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak on substantive basis vide order dated 02.06.2009. 4. A bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before this court at Jaipur Bench led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5259/2009 challenging the selection process undertaken by respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2008 on the ground that no criteria of selection was prescribed for determination of merit. The Single Bench allowed the said writ petitions vide order dated 29.04.2011 and held that the selection and appointments made by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.07.2008 were illegal and they were directed to hold fresh selection process after determining the criteria for selection. However, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid sufferance of the public at large in rural areas in absence of Ayurved Chikitsak, it was directed that till process of selection as per the Rules of 2008 based on proper criteria for selection and determination of merit is undertaken, selected and appointed candidates apart from other candidates may not be disturbed. However, if any candidate, already appointed, was not selected in the fresh selection, he was directed to vacate the regular post for newly selected meritorious candidate. Thus, the petitioners continued their services without interruption. However, if any candidate, already appointed, was not selected in the fresh selection, he was directed to vacate the regular post for newly selected meritorious candidate. Thus, the petitioners continued their services without interruption. The judgment of the Single Bench was unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench of this court by filing a bunch of intra court appeals and while dismissing the appeals vide judgment dated 31.10.2011, the Division Bench observed that that as the selection process has been quashed, without disturbing the directions issued by the Single Bench, it was made clear that the employees who are serving shall continue to serve till fresh selection process is complete. The SLP preferred against the aforesaid judgment also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.03.2012. 5. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Single Bench, an advertisement dated 30.04.2012 came to be issued inviting applications for selection to the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitsak for 378 posts, which were subsequently increased to 382. Again a bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before the Single Bench of this court at Jaipur challenging the selection process on the issues of cut off date for determination of eligibility, prescription of marks for educational qualification, experience and interview etc. The said writ petitions came to be allowed vide order dated 24.04.2014. However, the Division Bench while allowing the appeals preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench vide judgment dated 29.06.2015 held that the selection proces adopted by the State was not arbitrary, rather in pursuance of the directions of the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Single Bench. Accordingly, the State Government was directed to declare the select list forthwith. After passing of the judgment of Division Bench, the State Government issued a select list of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.04.2012 as amended on 05.11.2012. The name of the petitioners found place in the select list. Subsequently, order of appointment dated 25.08.2015 was issued granting appointment to the selected candidates including the petitioners. The petitioners joined the duties on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak. Most of the petitioners are still in service, while some of them have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 6. The name of the petitioners found place in the select list. Subsequently, order of appointment dated 25.08.2015 was issued granting appointment to the selected candidates including the petitioners. The petitioners joined the duties on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak. Most of the petitioners are still in service, while some of them have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 6. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition raising the grievance that even though they had been continuously working on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak since the year 2002/2004 and further they had completed the period of probation in pursuance of the appointment order dated 02.06.2009 before issuance of the direction by the Single Bench to hold the selection afresh, the respondents have again subjected the petitioners to probation for a period of two years on fixed remuneration vide appointment order dated 25.08.2015. In this regard the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents and also served a legal notice, but to no avail. 7. Another grievance raised by the petitioners is that despite putting in uninterrupted services by them for more than a decade, the respondents are not taking into account the services rendered by them for the period prior to joining services in pursuance of the order of appointment dated 25.08.2015, which would cause serious monetary loss to them as many of them would not even complete the qualifying service for getting pension. Further many retiral benefits like gratuity are calculated based on the length of service. The petitioners are also deprived of the privilege leave earned during the aforesaid period. 8. The petitioners have also raised the issues regarding regularization from the initial date of appointment, assured career progression etc., but the learned counsel for the petitioners has chosen not to press them. 9. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta, submits that the action of the respondents in subjecting the petitioners to probation again is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners have been serving on the post of Aryurved Chikitsak since the year 2002/2004. Though the services rendered by them prior to 2009 were contractual, however, the nature of the same was akin to the services rendered by regularly selected persons. It is submitted that the petitioners have been serving on the post of Aryurved Chikitsak since the year 2002/2004. Though the services rendered by them prior to 2009 were contractual, however, the nature of the same was akin to the services rendered by regularly selected persons. He further submits that the petitioners had already completed the period of probation on the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitsak pursuant to their selection and appointment in the year 2009 and their services were found satisfactory. Although the said selection process was declared invalid later on by the learned Single Bench on the ground that the respondents failed to prescribe the criteria of selection, but the fact remains that the petitioners were holding all the requisite qualifications to hold the post and completed the probation successfully and thus, the purpose of putting them under probation had been served and there was no occasion for the respondents to subject them to probation again. Learned counsel also pointed out that even after cancellation of the selection process of the year 2009, the petitioners were allowed to continue their services in the public interest pursuant to the directions issued by the Single Bench, thus, for all practical purposes, the petitioners were serving on the post of Gramin Ayurved Chikitsak without interruption till joining again in pursuance of the appointment order dated 25.08.2015. Learned counsel submits that the purpose of placing a person on probation is to see as to whether he is fit to be retained in service on the basis of his performance and the said purpose has been duly served as the performance of the petitioners was duly reported in their APARs and reviewed by the competent authority and thus, subjecting them again to probation would be highly unjust and unreasonable. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though a prayer is made in the writ petition seeking direction for regularization of the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment on contractual basis, however, he is not pressing the said prayer and instead is seeking a direction that the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment (2002 or 2004, as the case may be), may be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits and for leaves. Learned counsel submits that it is not a case where the petitioners have been randomly chosen to serve on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak. The respondents invited applications by issuing a public advertisement and after scrutiny of the applications, the meritorious candidates were appointed on contractual basis in the year 2002/2004. They continued in service as such till their regular appointment in pursuance of the appointment order dated 02.06.2009 and thereafter even though the selection process was declared invalid, they were allowed to continue in service in public interest under the orders of the court till they joined their duties in pursuance of the appointment order dated 25.08.2015. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that right from the date of initial appointment in the year 2002/2004, the petitioners have been discharging the same duties which are being discharged by regularly selected Ayurved Chikitsak in the State of Rajasthan. There was no distinction in the qualitative and quantitative services rendered by the petitioners vis-a-vis those who were working on regular basis. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for counting of the services rendered by them from the year 2002/2004 till 2015 for the purpose of pension, retiral benfits and leaves. 11. To fortify the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, as per which, a temporary employee, who has worked for more than five years on contractual basis and is given regular appointment on the said post without interruption in service, then the employee shall be entitled to privilege leaves for such period during which he was under contractual employment, while treating the said term as regular period of service. He further referred Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and submits that for the purpose of pension the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were duly selected on post of Ayurved Chikitsak in the year 2002/2004 and they continued in service without interruption, as such, they are entitled to get the services rendered by them counted for the purpose of pension and leave etc. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were duly selected on post of Ayurved Chikitsak in the year 2002/2004 and they continued in service without interruption, as such, they are entitled to get the services rendered by them counted for the purpose of pension and leave etc. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the meeting of the State Government officials held on 31.07.2008 in the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, it was decided to accommodate all the Ayurved Chikitsak who were working on contract basis and in pursuance thereof, the selection process was held in the year 2009, which was not limited to the Ayurved Chikitsak working on contract basis. The petitioners got selected and were given regular appointment in the year 2009. However, due to litigation, the matter lingered on till the year 2015 when the petitioners were again given appointment. During this entire period from 2009 to 2015 the petitioners were working against the substantive post of Ayurved Chikitsak, albeit under the directions of this court and in the public interest. Thus, the services provided by the petitioners cannot be undone for the technical reasons when for all practical purposes they were discharging their duties as Ayurved Chikitsak. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. [ (1986) 3 SCC 156 ] and submit that an unreasonable and unconscionable condition imposed by a mighty employer like the State cannot be sustained. In the case at hand even though the petitioners had put in service of over a decade on the same post, still they had to undergo probation of two years, which is highly unjust for them. 14. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Ayurved Chikitsak Welfare Association, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1997 (2) WLC (Raj) 452], to submit that if the appointment are made resorting to procedure for regular appointments, the denomination as ad hoc or temporary is not material and the same are equal to substantive appointments. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1997 (2) WLC (Raj) 452], to submit that if the appointment are made resorting to procedure for regular appointments, the denomination as ad hoc or temporary is not material and the same are equal to substantive appointments. He submits that the appointment of the petitioners was made following the selection process and whatever name may be given to the services provided by them, the same have to be counted for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for pension as well as for privilege leave and other retiral benefits. The petitioners are not claiming the benefit of seniority, assured career progression, arrears of pay etc. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for acceptance of the writ petition. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, DyGC, submits that the initial appointment of the petitioners on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak was contract basis for a fixed remuneration in order to provide facility to the general public in the rural areas. The services of these employees cannot be equated with the services of the regular employees. The services of the petitioners prior to their selection in the year 2009 were purely contractual basis. She submits that though the petitioners were selected on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak in pursuance of the selection process held in the year 2009, however, since the said selection process itself was declared illegal by the Single Bench of this court, thus, the petitioners cannot claim any right based on such selection. The petitioners were allowed to continue in service after cancellation of the selection process of 2009 only under the directions of the court and to avoid inconvenience to the public in rural areas. As such, these services provided by the petitioner cannot be reckoned for the purpose of counting qualifying service for pension. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it is the prerogative of the Government to set the conditions of service for its employees. When the petitioners were given regular appointment in the year 2015, they were subjected to probation as per rules. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it is the prerogative of the Government to set the conditions of service for its employees. When the petitioners were given regular appointment in the year 2015, they were subjected to probation as per rules. There is no provision under the relevant service rules to recognize the period served by the petitioners prior to 2015 as probation period and in such circumstances, the action of the respondents in putting the petitioners under probation is perfectly within the four corners of law and no interference therein is called for. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of her contentions placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi [2009 (2) RLW 1481 (SC)] and State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors. [ (2014) 14 SCC 77 ] submit that in these cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while reckoning the required length of service for the purpose of granting stagnation benefits, the ad hoc services are to be excluded. Applying the similar analogy, the petitioners are not entitled for counting of any period of service till their regular appointments were made in the year 2015. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on the record and the judgments cited by the learned counsel. 19. The issues for adjudication before this court in the instant writ petition are : (1) Whether the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis (2002 or 2004 as the case may be) till their joining in pursuance of the appointment order dated 25.08.2015 are to be reckoned for the purpose of counting of qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits as well as privilege leaves? (2) Whether the respondents were justified in subjecting the petitioners to probation of two years on fixed remuneration while giving them regular appointment vide order dated 25.08.2015 despite the fact that they had been serving on the same posts and discharging the same duties for last more than a decade? 20. (2) Whether the respondents were justified in subjecting the petitioners to probation of two years on fixed remuneration while giving them regular appointment vide order dated 25.08.2015 despite the fact that they had been serving on the same posts and discharging the same duties for last more than a decade? 20. The respondents vide a public advertisement dated 19.12.2001 invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Ayurved Chikitsak on temporary basis for 3 years or till the availability of suitable candidates selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. As per clause 6 of the advertisement, the selection was to be made on the basis of merit. Another advertisement for temporary appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak was issued on 06.10.2003, which too mentioned that the selection will be made on the basis of merit. Thus, it is clear that the initial appointment of the petitioners was made based on the merit. Though the appointments were on contractual basis, but except for the pay and nature of term of service; there was no distinction of work and job assigned between the petitioners and the other Ayurved Chikitsak working in the Department of Ayurved. The petitioners were working against the regular posts and their placement too were made vis-a-vis those who were working on substantive basis on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak. The APARs of the petitioners were maintained from the date of initial appointment. After framing of the Rules of 2008, vide advertisement dated 21.07.2008, the respondents invited applications for making regular appointments on the post Ayurved Chikitsak. As per the Annexure-A/11 of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5259/2009, the State Government had shown its inclination way back on 31.07.2008 to give regular appointment to all the Ayurved Chikitsak working on contract basis. The petitioners went through the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2008 and upon being selected they were provided appointment on substantive basis vide order dated 02.06.2009. Though the said selection process was declared illegal and cancelled by the Single Bench with direction to hold fresh selection process, but the fact remains that the eligibility of the petitioners to hold the post of Ayurved Chikitsak was never questioned. Though the said selection process was declared illegal and cancelled by the Single Bench with direction to hold fresh selection process, but the fact remains that the eligibility of the petitioners to hold the post of Ayurved Chikitsak was never questioned. Even after cancellation of the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2008, the petitioners were allowed to continue in service in the interest of the society and thus, their services were never discontinued since their initial appointment on contractual basis. The petitioners faced the selection process three times and on each occasion they were declared successful. Despite the fact that the State Government had an intent to regularize the services of the petitioners, only because of two rounds of litigation, the valuable time of the petitioners lost and their substantive appointment on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak could attain finality in the year 2015. However, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners have worked on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak from their initial appointment in the year 2002/2004 till their joining in the year 2015. Such long span of services provided by the petitioners cannot be undone on technical grounds. Further the petitioners are not claiming arrears of pay, seniority, promotion and the benefit of assured career progression scheme, rather they are praying for the counting of the period of service for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits and also for the purpose of leave allowances. 21. The claim of the petitioners find support from Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which reads as under :- QUALIFYING SERVICE 12. Commencement of qualifying service (a) xxxx (b) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2002/2004 temporarily on contract basis. Thereafter they continued their services without interruption till the year 2015. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2002/2004 temporarily on contract basis. Thereafter they continued their services without interruption till the year 2015. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that once the petitioners joined the service in pursuance of the appointment order dated 02.06.2009, their contractual services came to an end and as the selection process of the year 2009 was cancelled and the petitioners were continued under the directions of the court, thus, their services cannot be said to be uninterrupted, is not tenable. It is undeniable fact that the petitioners provided their services uninterruptedly till the year 2015 from the day one they joined the office and any denomination as ad hoc or temporary assigned to it is not material. Thus, taking resort to the Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the petitioners are entitled to get the services provided by him from the year 2002/2004 till the year 2015 counted for calculating the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. If the petitioners are not given such benefit, they shall be put in a very unjust position depriving them of fruits of their longstanding services. Many of the petitioners would retire without completing the qualifying service for pension. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the cases of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) and Surendra Mohnot (supra) are concerned, they are distinguishable inasmuch as the issue involved therein was regarding reckoning of length of service for grant of selection grade and it was held that such benefit was available for the period of service after regularization and ad hoc service was to be excluded. In the case at hand, the petitioners are not claiming such benefit. 22. So far as the issue of leave admissible to the petitioners prior to 2015 is concerned, Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, in unequivocal terms provides that a temporary employee, who has worked for more than five years on contractual basis and is given regular appointment on the said post without interruption in service, then the employee shall be entitled to privilege leaves for such period during which he was under contractual employment, while treating the said term as regular period of service. The rule referred above makes it abundantly clear that the employees like the petitioners are entitled for privilege leaves even for the period they worked on contractual basis. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of privilege leave for the entire duration since their initial appointment in the year 2002/2004. 23. Now coming to the question of subjecting the petitioners to probation in the year 2015 after putting in service of 13/11 years, first we look at the objective behind subjecting an employee to probation. The probation period is a time when newly hired employees are evaluated for their performance and suitability for the job. The word "probation" takes its origin from the Latin verb "probare", which would mean "to prove", "to test". In Cambridge Dictionary, the word probation is defined as :- "A period of time at the start of a new job when you are watched and tested to see if you are suitable for the job. In Black's Law Dictionary it refers to a person's fitness for a job and reads as :- "A period of testing and trial to determine a person's fitness for a job or school." Thus, from the above, it can be said that the probation period is the trial period for freshly recruited employees in a company/Government institute. It is the fixed duration during which a new employee's performance and suitability for a job are assessed. The provision is meant as a trial run to confirm if the hired individual aligns with the employer's expectations and fits well within requirements. In the case at hand, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can be termed as newly hired employees or fresh selectee. At the time of issuing appointment letter in the year 2015, they had already rendered their services of 13 years/11 years to the department and their performance was found satisfactory. During this entire period, they were discharging exactly the same duties under the contractual/ad hoc appointment and mere change in nomenclature of the type of appointment, will not make any difference. During the entire period for which the petitioners served earlier, the respondents had evaluated their performance and suitability for the job, which is clearly reflecting from the fact that the petitioners were selected in all three selection processes. Had there been anything adverse to the petitioners, they would not have been selected for the said post. During the entire period for which the petitioners served earlier, the respondents had evaluated their performance and suitability for the job, which is clearly reflecting from the fact that the petitioners were selected in all three selection processes. Had there been anything adverse to the petitioners, they would not have been selected for the said post. This fact is also reflecting from the experience certificates annexed by the petitioners with the writ petition, wherein the respondent authorities have found their services satisfactory. The fact cannot be ignored that the respondent State had intended to regularize the services of the petitioners in the year 2009. Thus, the action of the respondents in subjecting the petitioners to probation even after serving on the same post for 13/11 years is highly unjust, unreasonable and mechanical. The view of this court is fortified from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court held that unconscionable terms in contract of employment are void. Thus, the action of the respondents cannot be allowed to sustain. 24. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to include the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak from the year 2002/2004 (as the case may be) for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pension. The petitioners shall be entitled for privilege leave for the entire period from the date of joining in the year 2002/2004. The action of the respondents in subjecting the petitioners to probation on fixed remuneration vide appointment order dated 25.08.2015 is declared invalid and consequently, they shall be entitled to full remuneration applicable for post of Rural Ayurved Chikitsak from the date of their joining in pursuance of the order dated 25.08.2015. The respondents shall make necessary fixation of pay of the petitioners and give them arrears of salary for the entire period commencing from their date of joining in the year 2015. The petitioners, who have superannuated from service upon attaining the age of retirement during the pendency of this writ petition shall also be entitled for the above relief. 25. No order as to costs.