PREM KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them some questions are identical in nature and apart from this, through Writ Petition No. 3038/98 the appointments of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5109/92 are also challenged and, therefore, from this point of view also, both petitions are being decided together. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/92

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 24. 9. 1992 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders Annex. 8 and Annex. 9 dated 17. 9. 1992 passed by the respondent No. 2 District Education Officer (Boys), Bikaner terminating the services of the petitioners be quashed and further, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioners on the post held by them and to consider their cases for regularisation of service in the light of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1976")

(3.) IN J & K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the existence of Statutory Rules is not a condition precedent to appoint an eligible and fit person to a post. The executive power is co- extensive with legislative power of the State and under Art. 162, the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is settled law that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in accordance with the rules. The executive power could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but the instructions cannot and should not supplant the law, but would only supplement the law.