Order : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may most graciously be pleased to call for the record, examine the same and accept and allow this writ petition of humble petitioner, and- I) By an appropriate, writ, order, or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner seniority and increment on dated 04.02.2012 (Annex.2) passed by RS-CIT computer certificate. II) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the respondents to consider the regular appointment of Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and also grant him benefit of Annual Grade increment and ACP from the date their initial appointment and also pay arrears thereof with interest @ 18% and also give promotion to them on higher post with all consequential benefit III) That the respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the petitioner for promotion pursuant to the seniority according to date of 04.02.2012. IV) Any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, which are deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. V) Costs of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner at the very inception submitted that the issue is covered by a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Manish Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2025 (decided on 17.02.2025). 3. However, counsel for the respondents refuted the above submission and submitted that the petitioner would not be governed by the ratio in Manish Vyas (supra) 4. This Court, after going through the judgment as passed in Manish Vyas (supra), is of the opinion that the petitioner would not be squarely covered by the said decision for the reasons assigned in subsequent paras. 5. The facts of the present matter are that the petitioner was afforded compassionate appointment vide order dated 07.07.2007. As per the condition of his appointment order, he was under an obligation to pass the type test within a period of three years. However admittedly, the said type test was not cleared by the petitioner within a period of three years. The facts of the present matter are that the petitioner was afforded compassionate appointment vide order dated 07.07.2007. As per the condition of his appointment order, he was under an obligation to pass the type test within a period of three years. However admittedly, the said type test was not cleared by the petitioner within a period of three years. But he acquired the RSCIT certificate on 04.02.2012 and subsequently even cleared the typing test on 02.07.2020. 6. The consequential service benefits were therefore granted to the petitioner with effect from 02.07.2020 i.e. the date of his clearing the type test. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the first ground to the effect that Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1999’) came to be amended vide notification dated 05.07.2010 in the manner that in place of ‘type test’, a candidate was required to have ‘computer proficiency’. Since Rules of 1999 stood amended on 05.07.2010, the requisite qualification being computer proficiency only, the petitioner ought to have been granted benefit of increments w.e.f. the date he acquired the RSCIT qualification. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment of Manish Vyas (supra). 8. This Court is of the opinion that Manish Vyas (supra) would not govern the present issue as therein the appointment of the incumbent was post 05.07.2010 i.e. after the amendment in the Rules having been introduced. Vide the amendment, the ‘computer proficiency’ was substituted in place of ‘type test. Therefore, the Court therein held that the qualification of type test was not even required to be applied to the incumbent therein. 9. However, herein the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 i.e. prior to notification dated 05.07.2010 having come into picture. Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’) as it stood at that point of time read as under: “ 9.Procedural Requirement :- (1) The Procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependent shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test, within a period of 3 years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. The dependent shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test, within a period of 3 years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears will be paid.” Note :- For the purpose of this rule the head of the Department shall conduct such test every year irrespective of the number of candidates.” 10. In view of the above provision, the condition of clearing type test was rightly incorporated in the appointment letter of the petitioner. The same being a condition of the appointment and a condition of the rules governing at that point of time, the petitioner definitely was under an obligation to clear the type test. 11. As per the above Rule, the repercussion of an appointee not having cleared the type test within a period of three years would be that he would not be entitled for confirmation and consequently, would be liable to be terminated. Further, no annual grade increments were to be allowed until he/she cleared such qualification. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner had been confirmed after completion of his two years of service. Meaning thereby, the impediment of his confirmation and termination thereof, stood waived. The only consequence as per the said Rule which survived was that he would not be entitled to annual grade increments until he cleared the type test. Admittedly, the petitioner cleared the type test on 02.07.2020. Therefore, he would definitely be entitled to the monetary benefits of annual grade increments with effect from the said date only. 13. But then, the said impediment could not have come in way of the petitioner for computing his seniority once he had been confirmed after completion of two years of service. 14. The basic principle of seniority is governed by the years of service and the date of the incumbent entering into services. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 and in absence of any provision of law or condition of advertisement, he could not have been deprived of his seniority because of his not having acquired the requisite qualification in terms of conditions of the advertisement. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 and in absence of any provision of law or condition of advertisement, he could not have been deprived of his seniority because of his not having acquired the requisite qualification in terms of conditions of the advertisement. Admittedly, the petitioner had been confirmed with effect from 07.07.2009 i.e. after completion of his two years period of probation. In the event, the confirmation of the petitioner in service would definitely run back to the date of his initial appointment and it would be the said date which would be the governing factor for granting him seniority. 15. Admittedly, the repercussion of the petitioner having not cleared the type test had already been suffered by him insofar as he was not granted the annual grade increments. The said repercussion cannot be stretched to the extent of computation of his seniority. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed to the said extent. 16. The present writ petition is hence, partly allowed . The respondents are directed to compute the seniority of the petitioner keeping into consideration his initial date of appointment i.e. 07.07.2007. Consequences to follow. 17. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.