ABHIJIT SUTRADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by one common judgment dated 19th July, 2000, dismissing the writ petitions. These appeals have been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government had a large number of vacancies in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The State Government was not in a position to fill the posts of regular basis because the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC'), was not in a position to take necessary steps for regular appointments to the posts. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 ad hoc short term appointments were made, Rule 26 provides as under:

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have in the first instance argued that this was no body's case that the 183 ad hoc appointments were illegal and therefore, they could not be continued. Our attention was drawn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to the writ petition where it is stated that the posts for temporary appointments were advertised on 27th August, 1997 and by letter dated 16th September, 1997 a Committee was constituted consisting of District Collector and Animal Husbandry Officers to select candidates for temporary appointments for four months in the year 1998. On directions of the State Government vide letter dated 9th June 1998 the Director, Animal Husbandry Department issued a short term advertisement on 19th June, 1998 to appoint temporary Veterinary doctors for fixed short term on the selected candidates from RPSC were made available. It was in pursuance of this that districtwise selection committees were constituted consisting of the District Collector of the Area and the Department of Animal Husdbandry who made selection of eligible persons for temporary short term appointments to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. Thus the Government never questioned the validity of these appointments. The Government has not taken the stand that these appointments were initially illegal nor even during the course of hearing of these appeals it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the initial appointments of 183 persons on ad hoc short term basis were in any way illegal or questionable. Rule 26 of the Animal Husbandry Service Rules referred to hereinbefore permits such appointments. Therefore, when the validity of the appointments was never in question, in our view the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the aspect of validity of the appointments of 183 doctors. Possibly, the only reason for treating these appointments as illegal was the provision that if the appointments were to be continued for more than a year, concurrence of the RPSC ought to have been sought. If that is so, in the first instance the initial appointments cannot be said to be bad because the question of concurrence will arise only on or about the expiry of one year period. Secondly, it is to be noted that if the State Government fails to seek the approval of the RPSC and extends the appointments from time to time the concerned employees cannot be faulted and cannot be made to suffer on this account Thirdly, it has often been held that provisions regarding approval of the Public Service Commission being required, are only directory and not mandatory. For all these reasons we are unable to hold that initial appointments were illegal or contrary to the Rules.