DALPAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble R. S. Verma, J These six writ petitions have been heard together by consent of all concerned. Since a very short point is involved in them they are being disposed of at the admission stage itself Since the questions of facts and law involved in each one of them are identical, I am disposing them by a common order.

(2.) REPLY to show cause notice was filed in Ishwar Singh vs. State S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/91 Replies in other cases have not been filed. REPLY filed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/1991 has been adopted by the learned Government Advocate in all the cases and learned counsel for petitioners in all these writ petitions agree that reply filed in Ishwar Singh's case may be taken as reply in the other writ petitions too. Hence, the reply in Ishwar Singh's case has been taken as representative reply to all the writ petitions. For this very reason, I need not state the pleas raised in all the writ petitions, and a brief delineation of the averments of the petitioners in SB Civil Writ Peti-tion No. 1209/1991 may be taken as representative pleadings in all other cases.

(3.) THE other allegation is that the Chief Executive Officer Shri Navrang Rai belonged to Jhunjhunu. THE appointment letter Annex. R/l dated 5. 3. 1991 shows that out of total 70 candidates,as many as 35 belonged to Jhunjhunu and 10 belonged to the adjoining district Sikar, which fact speaks for itself Like wise out of 53 applications received for Physical Training Instructors, (P. T. I.), 42 belonged to Jhunjhunu. Out of total 27 selected lady candidates, more than 50% belonged to Jhunjhunu. It was alleged that the advertisement issued by the D. E. C. did not specify that posts of crafts teachers and physical training instructors were to be filled, yet appointment were made to such posts. Reliance was placed upon Annex. R/2 and Annex. R/3 in this regard. It was further pointed out that though selections were made on 23. 2. 91, yet the appointment letters were prepared on 22. 2. 1991. Reliance is placed upon Ex. R/4 in this regard. It was alleged that in fact on 22. 3. 91, Shri Navrang Rai was out of station and could not have signed Ex. R. 4 on the said date. Reliance has been placed on the log book dated 22. 2. 91 Ex. R/5. It was also pleaded that in all 1149 applicants are said to have been interviewed between 12. 2. 1991 and 21. 2. 91 and such a task was beyond human efforts. THE suggestion appears to be that so many candidates could not have been interviewed within such short period. Another allegation is that marks for scouting, social service and games had already been allotted while preparing the merit list but during interview such makes were again awarded and thus deserving candidates were excluded. It was further alleged that in cases of certain candidates, degrees/certificates were accepted without obtaining any confirmation from the Director of Education. It is further alleged that without exhausting the merit list, appointments were given from the waiting list. It was pointed out that there was a ban on recruitment of craft teachers, yet the D. E. C. ignored the ban. It was pleaded that in view of all these facts, the Government was entitled to act u/s 85 of the Raj-asthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Act, 1959, (hereinafter the Act ). It is pleaded that for the various irregularities and illegalities, Shri Navrang Rai Chief Executive Officer has already been suspended. THE State having supervisory powers over Zila Parishads, was entitled to act in the manner it has done and this Court, in the particular facts of this case, should not intervene.