BANSHI DHAR BOHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions arise in similar circumstances and raise identical question and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common, order.

(2.) THE petitioner in writ petitions No. 358 of 1971 and No. 1526 of 1971 is the same person, Banshidhar Bona, while writ petition No. 362 of 1971 has been filed by Bhawani Singh Chauhan. Both these petitioners were appointed as Assistant Mining Engineers (Survey) in temporary capacity and the period of their temporary employment was extended from time to time, subject to the condition that the same was liable to be terminated earlier in case persons duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) were appointed on the aforesaid posts. The Commission advertised the posts of Assistant Maning Engineers and respondents Nos. 3 to 8, in writ petitions Nos. 353 and 1526 of 1971 (sic) selected for such posts by the Commission in the month of December, 1970. A (sic) result of the aforesaid selection, the services of the both the petitioner were terminated by the order of State Government dated January 27, 1971 with effect from April 30, 1971. Writ Petition No. 358 of 1971 was filed by Banshi Dhar Bohra challenging the aforesaid order of the termination of his services, while the subsequent writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 was filed by him praying that the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and of three other persons who were joined as respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 be quashed. It may be noted that respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 were selected by the Commission in May 1971. However, learned couns1 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does nos wish to press his writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 in respect of the selection and appointments of respondent Nos 9 to 11.

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Calla, submitted that the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Subordinate Service Rules, 1960 have been amended by notifications dated August 3, 1975 and August 8, 1975 and the definition of 'Commission' contained in Rule 4(b) of the aforesaid Rules has been amended with retrospective effect and argued that on the basis of the amended definition of 'Commission' any one or more members of the Commission, acting jointly or severally, represent the Commission and as such the selection and appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 cannot now be considered to be void. However, as I have already observed above, the selection and appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 have already been held to be void and have been set aside by the order of this Court in Hari Mohan's case on July 2, 1975 prior to the amendments made in the aforesaid Rules on August 3, 1975 and August 8, 1975 and as such these amendments cannot validate such selection and appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8.