[2026:RJ-JP:22268] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17680/2023 State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education (Group-I) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.) ----Petitioner-Respondent Versus Sadatullah Khan S/o Shri Amanatulla Khan, Assistant Professor, General Surgery, R/o 899, Lodhon Ki Gali, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur. (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vigyan Shah Additional Advocate General with Ms. Tanvisha Pant Advocate. Mr. Archit Bohra Additional Government Counsel with Mr. Rahul Verma Advocate. Smt. Gayatri A. Rathore, Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department through Video Conferencing. For Respondent : Mr. C.P. Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Date of conclusion of arguments :: 25.05.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved :: 25.05.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment Date of pronouncement :: 27.05.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner-State have assailed legality and validity of judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.1111/2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-employee came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to grant promotion to the [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (2 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] respondent on the post of Associate Professor under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, “DACP Scheme”) from the date persons junior to him in the same selection process were granted such promotion. 2. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement dated 13.05.2011 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator in General Surgery. The respondent, who is a person suffering from loco-motor disability, applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (General Surgery). According to the respondent, despite being duly selected, his candidature was illegally withheld by the authorities. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7477/2014, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 19.01.2017 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the case of the present respondent immediately for appointment against the vacancies reserved for physically disabled persons under the recruitment year 2011-12. This Court further directed that the respondent shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except actual monetary benefits. 3. Further case of the respondent is that despite the aforesaid judgment, appointment was not accorded to him, compelling him to institute contempt proceedings before this Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, appointment order dated 26.10.2017 was issued in favour of the respondent and he joined service on 28.10.2017. Thereafter, a clarification/modification order dated 30.01.2018 was also issued [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (3 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] in continuation of the earlier judgment regarding grant of consequential benefits and the contempt petition was thereafter disposed of. 4. Subsequently, when the benefit of DACP Scheme was granted to similarly situated Assistant Professors upon completion of six years’ service and they were promoted to the post of Associate Professor vide order dated 26.06.2020, the respondent claimed similar treatment on the ground that in view of the judgment of this Court granting all consequential benefits along with seniority, his services were required to be notionally counted from the date persons selected pursuant to the same recruitment process were appointed. Since such benefit was denied, the respondent preferred Appeal No.1111/2020 before the Tribunal. 5. The petitioner-State contested the appeal before the Tribunal by contending that the respondent was actually appointed only on 26.10.2017 and had not completed six years of service as on 01.04.2020, which was the eligibility condition prescribed under the DACP Scheme for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. It was also contended that experience is an essential requirement in medical service and a person who has not actually discharged duties for the requisite period cannot be treated as having gained experience merely on the basis of notional seniority. It was further pleaded that grant of promotion without actual experience would adversely affect public interest and patient care. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and examining the DACP Scheme dated 06.01.2012, allowed the appeal by holding that under the Scheme itself, “regular service” means the period of service which is countable for seniority. Since [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (4 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] this Court had already granted consequential benefits along with seniority to the respondent vide judgment dated 19.01.2017, his services were required to be notionally reckoned from the date similarly situated candidates appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process were appointed. The Tribunal accordingly directed the State to grant promotion to the respondent from the date his juniors were granted promotion. 7. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned Additional Government Counsel for the petitioner-State argued that the Tribunal committed manifest illegality in equating notional seniority with actual experience. It was submitted that the respondent entered service only on 28.10.2017 and therefore, as on 01.04.2020, he had not completed the mandatory period of six years’ regular service. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the purpose behind prescribing six years’ experience under the DACP Scheme is to ensure adequate professional exposure and practical experience before promotion to the higher academic and clinical post of Associate Professor. It was argued that notional benefits granted pursuant to earlier litigation cannot substitute actual experience, particularly in medical education and health services where public interest and patient welfare are paramount considerations. It was further submitted that the earlier judgment dated 19.01.2017 did not specifically direct grant of promotional benefits under the DACP Scheme and the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of the earlier directions. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court at Principal Seat [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (5 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] Jodhpur in Rajendra Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1643/2023 decided on 12.05.2023) as well as in Seema Pal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7274/2020 decided on 13.10.2022), order dated 27.04.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Savita vs. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14864/2015). 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the respondent was illegally denied appointment despite being duly selected pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 13.05.2011. It was contended that because of the arbitrary action of the State authorities, the respondent was compelled to litigate before this Court and eventually succeeded. This Court, while allowing the earlier writ petition, consciously granted all consequential benefits except actual salary and thereafter clarification order dated 30.01.2018 also came to be passed. Learned counsel submitted that once seniority has been directed to be counted notionally from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed, the respondent cannot thereafter be denied promotional benefits flowing from such seniority. 9. It was further argued that the DACP Scheme itself defines “regular service” to mean the period of service countable for seniority and therefore the Tribunal has merely applied the Scheme in its correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act of withholding appointment and thereafter deny consequential [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (6 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] promotional benefits on the ground of lack of actual service. Reliance was placed upon the settled principle that an employee who is illegally deprived of appointment cannot be made to suffer further prejudice in matters of seniority and consequential promotions. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon judgments of this court in Rakesh Kumar Meena & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4479/2022 decided on 04.02.2023), Rajneesh Labana vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, 2022 (9) WLC 498 (Raj.), Naveen Patidar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10729/2018 decided on 03.01.2020). 10. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 11. At the outset, it deserves notice that the foundational facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the respondent was selected pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 13.05.2011. It is equally not disputed that despite selection, appointment was denied to him, compelling him to approach this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7477/2014. This Court, while allowing the said writ petition vide judgment dated 19.01.2017, directed consideration of the respondent for appointment and further granted all consequential benefits except actual pay. The said order attained finality and was subsequently acted upon by issuance of appointment order dated 26.10.2017 followed by clarification order dated 30.01.2018. 12. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent would be entitled to count his [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (7 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] notional seniority and consequential service benefits for the purpose of promotion under the DACP Scheme. 13. For answering the aforesaid issue, reference to the DACP Scheme introduced vide Notification dated 06.01.2012 becomes necessary, whereby Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’) were amended and new Rule 24B and 24BB were inserted in following manner:- “24B. Promotion under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme.- 3"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 25 and subject to the provisions of rule 24BB, members of the service shall be granted promotions under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme, herein after referred to as the DACP Scheme, as under:- S.No. Promotion under DACP Scheme Number of years of regular service required for promotion From To 1. Assistant Professor Associate Professor By promotion from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Professors of the concerned specialities who have completed 6 years regular service from the date of joining on appointment to the said post. 2. Associate Professor Professor By promotion from Associate Professor of the concerned specialities who have completed 4 years regular service on the said post. 3. Professor Senior Professor By promotion from Professors of the concerned specialities who have completed 4 years regular service on the said post. Note.- 1. Associate Professor who has completed 14 years of service including four years as Associate Professor as on 01-04-2011 and promoted as Professor under DACP Scheme from 01-04-2011 shall be granted grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- as Senior Professor on completing two years of service as Professor i.e. with effect from 01-04-2013. 2. Professor regularly promoted before 01-04-2011 and who has completed total service of 14 years as on 01-04-2011 but has not completed two years of service as Professor as on 01.04.2011 shall also be granted grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-as Senior Professor with effect from 01-04-2013. (2) The promotion under DACP Scheme shall be made whether vacancy is available or not. [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (8 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] (3) For the purpose of this rule, regular service means and includes service by a government servant on the appointment after regular selection in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules for that post. The period of service rendered on adhoc basis/ urgent temporary basis shall not be counted as the regular service. In other words, the period of service which is countable for seniority shall only be counted as regular service. (4) After 01.04.2011 the members of the service who are entitled for benefit of DACP Scheme shall not be eligible to take benefit of the rule 24 and 24A of these rules. 24BB. Procedure for granting DACP.- (1) The Secretary to Government in Medical Education Department shall on 1st April of every year prepare a list of the members of the service, who are eligible for DACP in the year. (2) Eligibility for granting DACP shall be as under:- (i) Candidates shall possess academic and technical qualification as mentioned in rule 12. (ii) Candidate shall not have any adverse entry in APAR of last preceding 7 years. (3) The Government may issue instructions for provisionally dealing with granting DACP or other ancillary matters in an equitable and fair manner of persons who may be under suspension, or against whom departmental proceeding is under progress, at the time granting of DACP are considered to a post to which they are eligible or would have been eligible but for such suspensions or pendency of such enquiry or proceedings. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 6, 8 and 8A, if there is no vacancy for granting DACP available, the post held by the candidate shall be converted into the post on which the candidate is to be promoted till he/she will hold that post. (5) The promotion under DACP Scheme shall be allowed only after screening by the Committee, consisting of the following, namely: 1. Chairman of the Commission or a member of Commission nominated by him. Chairman 2. Principal Secretary to the Government in the Department of Medical Education. Member 3. Principal Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel or his representative not below the rank of Deputy Secretary Member 4. One of the Principals of the State Medical Colleges nominated by the State Government Member 5. Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Medical Education. Member Secretary. 14. Rule 24B(1) makes it clear that for promotion under DACP scheme from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, it is incumbent that the aspirant must have completed 6 years regular service from the date of joining on substantive appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (9 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] 15. Rule 24B(3) of the Rules specifically provides that “regular service” means the period of service which is countable for seniority. The Scheme further clarifies that ad hoc or urgent temporary service shall not be counted and only such service which is countable towards seniority shall constitute regular service. 16. Thus, the DACP Scheme itself creates a direct nexus between seniority and regular service. Once the earlier judgment of this Court granted consequential benefits including notional seniority to the respondent, the inevitable consequence thereof is that the period counted towards such seniority would also qualify as regular service within the meaning of the DACP Scheme. 17. It would also be relevant to mention that Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Respondent, whereby office order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-R/1) has been issued by the Principal, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur was placed on record to show that in compliance of Judgment dated 19.01.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 7477/2014, Respondent would be entitled for all the consequential benefits, hence, in supersession of earlier order dated 03.12.2022, by treating the date of joining of Respondent Dr. Sadatullah Khan as 07.10.2013, at par with candidate Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Pipal placed at merit serial No. 40, upon completion of one year of probation period, his pay in the pay band of Assistant Professor Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.6600 was fixed at ₹25,200/- per month as basic pay with effect from 07.10.2014. 18. Thus, it is evident from the above order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-R/1) that date of joining of the respondent [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (10 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] on the post of substantive appointment has been treated as 07.10.2013, accordingly for the purpose of grant of DACP on the post of Associate Professor as per Rule 24B of the Rules of 1962, period of 6 years regular service of the Respondent on the post of Assistant professor shall be counted from 07.10.2013. Indisputedly in case, 07.10.2013 as per Annexure-R/1 is taken to be relevant date for the purpose of grant of benefit as per Rule 24B, then the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of DACP. 19. The contention raised by the petitioners-State that actual physical discharge of duties alone can be treated as experience cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The respondent was prevented from joining service not on account of any fault attributable to him, but because of illegal withholding of appointment by the authorities despite his selection. The State cannot be permitted to derive advantage from its own wrongful act. Had the respondent been appointed along with other selected candidates pursuant to the recruitment process of 2011-12, he would have naturally completed the requisite period for consideration under the DACP Scheme. The delay in appointment was solely attributable to the arbitrary action of the petitioners. 20. The principle that an employee should not suffer because of illegal action of the employer is too well settled to require elaborate discussion. Once notional seniority and consequential benefits have been granted by judicial order which has attained finality, all attendant service benefits flowing therefrom must ordinarily follow unless specifically excluded. In the earlier judgment, this Court excluded only actual monetary [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (11 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] benefits. No exclusion was made regarding seniority, promotional avenues or consideration under the DACP Scheme. 21. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners regarding public interest and patient welfare also does not impress this Court. The respondent possesses the requisite educational and professional qualifications for the post. His promotion is not being granted by waiving eligibility conditions but by correctly reckoning the period of regular service in accordance with the definition contained in the Scheme itself. Once the Scheme recognizes service countable for seniority as regular service, the State cannot seek to import a different interpretation contrary to the express language of the Scheme. 22. In the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur has held as under: “A bar perusal of the Rules and the Schedule appended to the Rules clearly show that a Headmaster/Lecturer will be considered for promotion to the post of Principal only if he has performed the duties of Headmaster/ School Lecturer for a period of three years. In the opinion of this Court, the actual working experience on the post of Headmaster/Lecturer is a condition precedent for consideration of a candidate for the post of Principal. The notional benefits as ordered by this Court cannot mean to waive the conditions of eligibility prescribed under the Rules for consideration of a candidate for higher/promoted post. The petitioner's case is liable to be considered for promotion on the post of Principal only after he gains the experience of three years' actual working on the post of Headmaster/School Lecturer besides other eligibility conditions mentioned in the Schedule. The view taken by this Court is fully supported by a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 416, which are as under:- "Much emphasis has been laid by the respondents on the judgment in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under: 15. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this appeal by the Union of India by contending that 2 years' period of experience has to be reckoned, not from 11.10.1988, but from 21.9.1989. There is no dispute that the eligibility condition is 2 years [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (12 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] experience in Grade-II. Now, this respondent having really started working in Grade-II pursuant to the order of 21.9.1989, he could not have gained experience prior to the date he had joined pursuant to this order. The mere fact that his promotion in Grade-II was notionally made effective from 11.10.1988 cannot be taken to mean that he started gaining experience from that day, because to gain experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of some injustice, inter alia, because some junior has come to be promoted earlier. But we entertain no doubt that the person promoted to higher grade cannot gain experience from the date of the notional promotion; it has to be from the date of too actual promotion.” 23. In the matter of Savita (supra), while dealing with requirement of experience for the purpose of promotion, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court laid down as under: “(13) Fixing the period of experience as an essential criterion for promotion, is based on administrative interest in service. There can be no doubt that layer required experience would give better thrust to administrative efficiency and quality output. The experience has to be construed as the actual experience. The experience is a mandatory condition required by Schedule-I of Rules 1993 and dilation of such condition would violate the spirit of Rules. The criteria of having Five years experience for promotion has been fixed under the Rules and the petitioner is supposed to possess the same at the time of consideration of her case for promotion post. The judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 24. This court finds that in the case of Seema Pal (supra), the facts were altogether different, hence, the observations given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur that promotion to the higher grade cannot be claimed on the basis of experience from the date of notional promotion, is not applicable in the present set of facts. 25. Whereas, in the case of Rakesh Kumar Meena & Others (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur has held that notional seniority conferred upon an employee pursuant to adjudication of High Court must be treated as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. Relevant observations are as under: [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (13 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] “6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that true it is, that pursuant to the judgment in petitioners' favour, they have been conferred notional benefit with effect from the date they have been claiming, but in order to meet the eligibility criterion, the experience of five years has to be actual working experience as Teacher Grade-III. He added that the fact that the notional benefits have been conferred to such petitioners, the period of the notional seniority cannot be treated as an actual experience, when they claim promotion to higher post. 10. The issue for consideration of this Court is very limited - “whether the notional seniority conferred upon an employee pursuant to adjudication made by the High Court and corresponding benefits accorded by the State Government is to be treated as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion.” 11. The answer has to be affirmative, for the reasons set out hereinfra. 12. An adjudication made by the High Court, which has attained finality and which has been given effect to has to be brought to logical end and needs to be given its legitimate effect. 13. If the respondents' stand is accepted, then the judgment passed by this Court in petitioners' favour would be rendered otiose and meaningless. No fruitful purpose would be served by making adjudication or holding that an employee is entitled for notional benefit. 14. In place of actual pecuniary benefits, notional benefits are often conferred in order to balance equity so that the State is not unnecessarily burdened with the additional salary and emoluments. But such balancing act or equatable consideration cannot entitle the State to take advantage and take a U turn to contend that the same cannot be equated with actual experience. 15. A reading of the judgment of this Court in Rajneesh Labana’s case (supra) shows that all relevant law including the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Bhaskar & Ors. have been considered. 16. In view of the aforesaid and following the judgment in the case of Rajneesh Labana's case (supra) these petitions are allowed. 17. The respondents are directed to publish fresh seniority list/list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II after reflecting petitioners' name appropriately, considering their date of appointment to be notional date (as fixed by the State in furtherance of the orders of the High Court) for the purpose of reckoning their seniority.” [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (14 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] 26. In the case of Rajneesh Labana (supra), the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seathas held as under: “15. The case of the petitioners is that in case their experience is counted from the date of appointment of similarly placed candidates, i.e. 11.10.2017 instead of 06.08.2018, they would be completing four years period as on 01.04.2022 and would, therefore, be eligible, however, denial on the part of the respondents in this regard is not justified. 16. As noticed, it has been emphasized that the delay in according appointment to the petitioners, who were all more meritorious than those who were accorded appointment by orders dated 11.10. 2017, for no fault of theirs. they cannot be deprived of the benefit. Submissions have also been made that as this Court directed grant of the benefits at par with all other similarly situated candidates, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the same. 17. As noticed, this Court while deciding the petitions filed by the petitioners came to a categoric conclusion that in terms of the advertisement the petitioners were eligible and were wrongly denied appointment as Patwari though they stood in the merit and consequently while allowing the writ petitions, gave specific directions to grant all the benefits at par with other similarly situated candidates. The respondents have complied with the same by assigning seniority to the petitioners, which is reflected from Annex. 7, wherein as on 01.04.2022, the petitioners have been assigned seniority as per their merit in terms of Recruitment-2015. 18. The emphasis laid by the respondents that though the petitioners may be entitled to seniority in terms of their merit, they cannot claim experience on the post of Patwari for the purpose of their eligibility for consideration for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari, cannot be countenanced. 19. As noticed, the directions of the Court were very specific according all the benefits to the petitioners. Once the petitioners have been accorded seniority (Annex.7) they cannot possibly be denied promotion despite being senior to those who were accorded appointment prior to the petitioners, though-lower in the merit, inasmuch as promotion is the consequence of seniority and would be an inevitable corollary to grant of seniority under the directions of this Court. The terms 'Seniority' and 'Seniority System' have been defined in Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition as under: "Seniority.1. The preferential status, privileges, or rights given an employee based on the employee's length of service with an employer. Employees with seniority may receive additional or enhanced benefit packages and obtain competitive advantages over fellow employees in layoff and promotional decisions. 2. The status of being older or senior. Seniority system. Employment law. Any arrangement that recognizes length of service in making decisions about job layoffs and promotions or other advancements." [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (15 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] 20. Promotion is comprehended within the word 'seniority' and there is no good reason for restricting the word seniority as though giving of seniority but depriving of the promotion based on seniority, which essentially negates the 40 very purpose of according seniority. 21. Further, the very fact that the petitioners have been accorded seniority essentially under the directions of this Court on account of their having been deprived of appointment alongwith those less meritorious than them, the award of seniority to them, has introduced a fiction, whose basic purpose under the direction of the Court was to accord the benefit, which otherwise was not available to the petitioners. 23. In Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 637, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that as the respondent therein was selected by direct recruitment, he was entitled to be appointed according to Rules and as his appointment was delayed, for no fault of his, he was entitled to ranking given in the select list and appointment accordingly. 29. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of seniority to the petitioners by treating them eligible for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari by taking their experience on the post of Patwari w.e.f. 11.10.2017, the date the persons lower in merit/junior to them, were accorded appointment/have been treated-as eligible for promotion.” 27. In the case of Naveen Patidar (supra), where earlier directions were given by the Division Bench in case of the petitioner in that case for grant of notional benefits, it was held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of grant of benefits attached to the experience only on the ground that the petitioner had actual worked only for a day. Following part of the judgement is relevant: “I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The Division Bench while disposing of the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner observed and directed as under:- “Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment has already been accorded to the appellant/petitioner as General Nursing & Midwifery (Male) with National Rural Health Mission on 10.07.2015. The appointment given is made absolute. The appointment of the appellant/petitioner is required to be treated effective from the date the persons less meritorious to him were appointed. However, he shall [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (16 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] not be entitled to any monetary benefit in actual terms. The respondents, however, are required to fix his pay by granting all notional benefits applicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” The directions are clear, whereby, it was indicated that appointment of the petitioner though given on 10.7.2015 was required to be treated effective from the date persons less meritorious to the petitioner were appointed. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefit in actual terms, however, the respondents were required to fix his pay by granting all notional benefits applicable. The direction for according all notional benefits to the petitioner is explicit. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had actually worked for a day only, which aspect is admitted by the petitioner, the fact that denial of appointment took place despite merit took place at the time of earlier recruitment for no fault of the petitioner and directions were given by the Division Bench for grant of notional benefits, the petitioner cannot be deprived of grant of certificate on the ground that after appointment the petitioner had worked for one day only with the respondents.” 28. When the aforesaid principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments are applied in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as prevailing Rules, this court finds that the DACP Scheme itself creates a clear and direct nexus between “regular service” and “service countable for seniority”. Rule 34(3) of the Rules of 1962 provides that regular service would mean the period of service which is countable for seniority. In the present case, the petitioners themselves issued office order dated 08.04.2024 treating the respondent’s date of joining on the post of Assistant Professor as 07.10.2013 in compliance of earlier judgment of this court. Once the petitioners themselves have treated the respondent’s appointment as notionally effective from 07.10.2013 for the purposes of seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits, the same period cannot be excluded while computing “regular service” under the DACP Scheme and Rule 24B of the Rules of 1962. The State cannot be permitted to adopt inconsistent stands by granting consequential service benefits on [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (17 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] the basis of notional appointment from 07.10.2013, while simultaneously denying promotional benefits by ignoring the very same period of service. Such a course would amount to permitting the State to approbate and reprobate simultaneously, which is impermissible in law. 29. Further, the respondent cannot be made to suffer on account of the illegal withholding of appointment by the petitioners despite his selection pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 13.05.2011. Had the respondent been appointed along with other selected candidates, he would have naturally completed the requisite qualifying service for grant of DACP benefit. The delay in appointment being solely attributable to the petitioners, they cannot derive advantage from their own wrong so as to deny the respondent his legitimate promotional benefits. Therefore, once the notional date of appointment i.e. 07.10.2013 is taken into consideration, the respondent indisputably fulfills the requirement of six years’ regular service and becomes entitled for grant of DACP benefit on the post of Associate Professor from the date similarly situated juniors were granted such benefit. 30. On examination of order passed by the Tribunal, this Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the respondent’s appointment is required to be notionally reckoned from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the earlier judgment of this Court as well as the provisions of the DACP Scheme. No perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court in [2026:RJ-JP:22268] (18 of 18) [CW-17680/2023] exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 31. It is trite law that interference with findings rendered by the Tribunal is warranted only when the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of record. Merely because another view may also be possible, this Court would not substitute its own view in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction. In the present case, the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal is not only plausible but also fully consistent with the earlier judicial directions and the language employed in the DACP Scheme. 32. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 33. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 34. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/