LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present batch of writ petitions is by 12 petitioners who were selected as teachers under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules ). It is common ground of the parties that under the aforesaid Rules, a large number of persons were selected, some were appointed but some could not be appointed. Who were not selected secured stay orders and therefore, appointments could not be given to the selected teachers. THEre were writ petitions in this court and there is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, Smt. Yashoda Rani vs. State of Raj. (1) and the Division Bench while disposing the writ petitions passed an order which is as under : "having taken all these facts into consideration we pass the following direction in these writ petitions: 1. THE respondents shall first make the appointment of the duly selected candidates which will also include those candidates who are in the waiting/reserve lists. 2. If the vacancies still remain then the respondent will make the appointments of those petitioners who are better and higher qualified and possess better academic qualification among them and who are otherwise eligible for appointment like having the qualification of teachers training etc. 3. THE respondents in making these appointments will follow the principle and policy that the services of the last appointed petitioner will be terminated first and the services of the earlier appointed petitioner will be terminated subsequent i. e. to say on the principle of "last come first go". 4. THE respondents will be at liberty to give preference to the lady teachers in the matter of appointment after laying down a policy in this behalf, and 5.THE respondents will keep the roster system in view and strictly follow it in the matter of appointment. " In Para 7 of that order it was observed that "this order will cover the cases of all teachers whether appointed in the regular schools or under the Black Board Schemes Schools or any other scheme. THEy shall all be treated on equal footing. This order will also apply to those who have not approached this Court. THE respondents will make a compliance of this order within one month from today. THE writ petitions shall accordingly be disposed of. " Yet another batch of writ petitions came to this court and in the case of Baij Nath Vs. State of Raj. the same Division Bench which had decided the case of Yashoda Rani (supra) held as under: 1. THE respondents, shall not terminate the service of the petitioners who have already been appointed, in order to retain in service the non-selected candidates; 2. If the orders of termination of services of the petitioners have been issued, such orders shall stand quashed and they shall be reinstated forthwith: and 3. If the appointments to the duly selected petitioners have not been given, the appointments will be forthwith given now. Those of the petitioners, who have been appointed in pursuance of the interim stay orders passed by this court, will continue in service and appointment orders will be issued to them, if not issued so far. " It was also held that even after making appointments of regularly selected candidates, some posts would still remain vacant and available for fresh appoint-ments. THE State Government still issued an order on 6-4-1988 taking a policy decision that those teacherswho were even appointed on temporary adhoc basis prior to 31. 12. 1985 shall be confirmed and made permanent.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Rastogi drew my attention to a decision of this court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2020/89 wherein it was said by this Court that the notification dt. 11-8-89, shall be implemented within 3 weeks from that day. That writ petition was disposed of in view of the undertaking of the Govt. Advocate.